20121074 Ver 1_Individual_20121126

LLP
ECS CAf�OLINAS. LLf'
"Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical o Construction Materials o Environmental ° Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F -1078
November 19, 2012
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attn: Ms. Karen Higgins
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
2®121074
ECS Project No. 09- 21106A
Reference: Application for Section 404 Individual Permit
Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and.Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina fT � I
Dear Mr. Thomas and Ms. Higgins: 11 _
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) is pleased to provide this application fora Department of the Army
Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) and a corresponding North Carolina Individual Water Quality
Certification (IC) for proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. in connection with the proposed
project referenced above. ECS delineated the site between April 2012 to May 2012. Mr. John
Thomas, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the site on June 5, 2012.
Representatives of Ashley, ECS, Mr. John Thomas with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Ms. Sue Homewood with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality had a pre - application
meeting on August 8, 2012. The portions of the site that will be impacted by the proposed
project were revisited by ECS, Mr. John Thomas and Mr. Andy Williams with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Ms. Sue Homewood with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
This application has been prepared on behalf of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (Ashley). If
there are questions regarding this application, or a need for further information, please contact
us at (336) 856 -7150.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Bradley S. Luckey Michael T. Brame, PWS
Environmental Project Manager Environment D 7 I
r` D
Attachments: 401 Individual Water Quality Certification Fee ($570.00) NOV 2
4811 Koger Boulevard • Greensboro, NC 27407 o T 336 -856 -7150 ^ F: 336 -856 -7160 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid - Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC ECS Texas, LLP

20 12 10 74
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-13003
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
EXPIRES: 31 AUGUST 2012
33 CFR 325)
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Red ucbon Projoct (071[-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having junsdiclion over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STAT EM ENT
Authorities. Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 32D -332. Principal Purpose. Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses. This information maybe shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information isvoluntary, however, d information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/orinsiruchons) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 T BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE
FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Michael Middle - Last - Moran
First - Michael Middle . Thomas Last - Brame
Company- Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.
Company- ECS Carolinas, LLP
E -mail Address - mmoran @ashleyfurniture.com
E -mail Address - mbrame @ecslimited.com
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS.
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- One Ashley Way
Address- 4811 Koger Boulevard
city - Arcadia State -WI zip - 54612 Country - US
City - Greensboro stare -NC zip -27407 Country - US
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE
10. AG ENTS PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
(608) 323 -3377 (608) 863 -0580 (608) 323 -6187
(336) 856 -7150 (336) 362 -1523 (336) 856 -7150
STATEMENT OF AUTHO RIZATION
11. I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the procossing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
See attached agent authorization form and site deeds
SIGNATURE OF P —DATE
1
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJ ECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Ashley Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center — Advance
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek
Address 916 Baltimore Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.960467 N Longitude: dN - 80.468136 W
city - Advance state- NC zip- 27028
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 5860673478 & 5860561470 Municipality Advance
Section- Deeds Attached Township - Shady Grove Range - Deeds Attached
uv" rurcror'+avD, UU r Gu i u EDITION OF OCT 2004IS OBSOLETE Pmpc=rn CrCw -OR

7. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Greensboro — Intersection of Wendover Avenue and Interstate 40: Follow Interstate 40 West for
34.3 miles; Exit Interstate 40 via Exit 180A/NC 801; Turn left and go 0.5 miles; Turn right on U.S. Highway
158 and go 1.6 miles; Turn left on Baltimore Road and go 1.8 miles. The site is on the right side of the
road at 916 Baltimore Road.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of pmject, include all features)
Ashley has selected a site in Advance for manufacturing and distribution purposes. In order for the site to
accommodate the needs of Ashley Furniture, the existing building, parking areas and access drives must
be expanded. In addition, a railroad spur must be extended along the southern boundary of the parking
area. Stormwater ponds must also be constructed. Supplemental information concerning the nature of the
activity is included in the Application Report.
19. Pmjoct Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The project purpose is to develop the site with a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and distribution
facility to remain viable into the future. The project purpose is to construct an addition (consists of a
2,304,100 square foot building addition, tractor trailer loading areastparking areas and access roads, a
railroad spur and stormwater ponds) to accommodate the needs of Ashley. Supplemental information
concerning the nature of the activity is included in the Application Report.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s)for Discharge
The reason for the discharge is that the facility must be expanded to meet the needs of Ashley Furniture.
Details pertaining to the proposed project are included in the attachments.
21. Types) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Clean Earthen Fill Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Approximately 19,931
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres The expansion will impact 316 linear feet of stream and 4.089 acres of wetland.
or Additional details pertaining to impacts are included in the attachments.
Linear Feet
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Details pertaining to the avoidance, minimization and compensation are included in the attachments.
ENG FO RM 4345. OCT 2016

Su lementalInformation
24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? ElYcs P N' to IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (am)r_ then can bc nusm irt:, pi:a;ta[mdia ppl- mnotiiir.V
a. Address- See Attached Map and List
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Applicabon.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL` IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
No certifications or approvals /denials have been applied for or received at this time. The following approvals will be
applied for in conjunction with this project:
-Local Building Permits
-Local Water and Sewer Permits
- NCDENR Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section - Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
- NCDENR Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit — Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — 404 Individual Permit
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, budding, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made forpermrt or permitsto authorize the work described in this application. I certify thatthis information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authonty to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT TE 5 GNAT OF ENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed acMy (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
11frauclulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2010

ECS Carolinas, LLP
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
This form authorizes ECS to act as our agent In stream/Wetland matters Including U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Dlvlslon of Water Quality field verification and permit
application.
Property Address: A'sW Nutrr re
P, IN 0I i34Mand 68106614ZD
Relimora Road. Advance: Davie GounW. NC.
Owner Information:
17 rlP
•. /�»
IWA
Telephone Number.
y ,
Fax Number. - _320-' loa2
E -mail Address: AA_
08/16/2012 8:14AM (GMT- 05:00)

0894
0257
aoi rata; t�9 31da
,I� 3 ;31V'�il 0334
E nty, North Carolina Paid $ ZQ,8 -12, CO
'PHIS IIVSTRUMENT MWAM BY
L Meby Whatley
19 & Fayetteville St., Asheboro, NC 27203
and
Garth K. Dmddin
Wort, Norris, Hennioger & Pittman, P.A.
6832 Morrison Bodward, Charlotte, North Carolina 28211
AND $WEM BE RETURNED TO:
DaaAlman
Vice Prat & General Comssel
Ashby Fora tare Industries, Ina
One Ashley Way
Arcadia, WI 54612
Excise Tax: $20,872.00
TAX PARCEL ID. NO.F7000000I8
BK894PC251
03375
FILED FOR REGISTRAT1pN
JOR6 22, 2012 1:23 VA
DATE "TIME
AND RECORDED IN BOOK 894 PAGE 257
IV1• biIOAF,REGISTTEq_OFMM
BY VIE 1Y P
0��13Y
The Preparer is informed that the property conveyed fiMM include the primary residence of a Grantor
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
TffiS WARRANTY DEED, made and executed as of the Adday of June,
2012 by ScIrwar&M., LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, whose address for
purposes of this instrument is 1947 N. Fayetteville Street, Asheboro, North Carolina 27203 -3269
(hereinafter refereed to as the "Grantor'), to and in favor of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., a
Wisconsin corporation, whose address for the purpose of this instrument is One Ashley Way,
Arcadia, WI 54612 (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee').
THAT GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00 /100 Dollars
($10.00) in hand paid by Grantee to Grantor and for other good and valuable considerations, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does, by these presents, grant,
bargauy sell, transfer, convey and confuse unto the Grantee, the real property lying and being
situate in Shady Grove Township, Davie County, North Carolina, as more particularly described
on Exhibits A and A -1, attached hereto an incorporated herein by reference.
-t-

0894 1 BK*B 14 PG 2 5 8
0258
Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or
in anywise appertaining.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the herein described property (the "Property -) unto Grantee
in fee simple forever.
AND subject to those matters set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, Grantor covenants
with the Grantee, that Grantor has done nothing to impair such title as Grantor received, and
Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by,
under or through Grantor, except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
M WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused these presents to be executed as of the
day and year first above written.
Schwarz -P^ LLC,
a North Carolina limited liability company
By:
Jeffrey H. Member
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
I cer* that the followingperson(s) personally appeared before me this day and istare personally
imown to tae or identified by me through satisfactory evidence, and acknowledged to me that
s/he voluntarily sighed the foregoing document for the purpose stated therein and in the capacity
indicated: Jeffrey H. Schwarz, Member- , ager
Date:
Notary Public
Print Nam: 5
j sE�.ru
My commission expires: -
.7,. Co,, NC

0894 RM a PG 2 5q
0259
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Grantor does hereby convey unto Grantee, without any warranty of any nature, the following
described property that certain parcel of land containing 311.14 acres, situated, lying and being
in Shady Grove Township, Davie County, North Carolina, having the saw address of 916
Baltimore Road, Advance, NC, and being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a NGS Monument WLTWMORE" , having NC GRID NAM coordinates of
N:809,69L72 fl, E:1,568,412.60 IIL combined grid factor: 0.98997670; thence N 19°5946" E a
hodmntal ground distance of 236.72 feet to a calcubW podrtr said point tang located to the centedme
of Baltimore Road (a 60' public rfght-of -wayx which Is the POINT OF BEGINNING; having NC GRID
NAD83 coordinates of N:809=.05 ft. E:1, 568, 494.19 it thence with the centadine of Baltimore Road
the k1lowing 6 courses and distances: l) S 11°30'18" W a distance of 104.89 fleet to a calculated point;
2) 810 °19'18" W a distance of 100.00 feet to a calculated point 3) 8 07°01'18" W a dsleruce of 100.00
W to a calculated poK 4) S 03°40'18" W a distance of 79.13 feet to a cabh1ad point 5) S 02°59'18"
W a distance of 1,267.81 feet to a rskrdaded point 6) 8 02°4848" W a distance of 912.13 fleet to
a cakuhdod point thence turning and leaving the centerrme of Baltimore Road with the following 7
courses and distances through the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company Property as described in Deed Book
65, Page 400 and Map Book 3. Page 121-4 of the Davie County Registry: l) N 8rW53" W crossing an
existing nap at a distance of 31.51 feet for a total distapnee of 2,689.89 feet to an existing Iron pipe; 2) S
02 050'01" W a dhstartce of 89.89 feet to an exis V Iron pipe; 3) N 87°09'44" W a distance of 290.04 feet
to an exis ft Iron pipe; 4) N 02"5275" E a dunce of 79.89 feet to an exbft iron p/pe; 5) N 87°10'12"
W crossing an existing han pipe at a distance of 1,250.18 feet for a total distance of 1,361.16 feet to an
now Iron rod; 6) N 02°5072" E a distance of 1, 534.79 feet to a new Iron rod, said point being located N
87010'10" W a distance of 110.98 feet from an exiling ion rod; 7) N 87"10110" W a distance of 806.78
feet to an exsting Imn pipe; said point being located on the eastern One of the Jeannette A. Cook Properly
as described in Deed Book 66, Page 206 of the Davie County Registry; thence with the Jeanette A. Cook
Property N 25°58'43" E crossing an exlstvhg c oncrafe monument at a distance of 932AS feet for a total
distance of 1, 395.88 feet to an adsftg concrete monrm eK said point being located on the southern
property One of the Brian W. Home Property as described to Deed Book 569, Page 500 of the Davie
County Registry; thence with the sou0hem properly One of the dfcesaid Bran W. Honkie Property and with
a portion of the Charles M. Wag 'southern property line as hereinafler referenced S 86°x' E a
distanos of 492.31 feet to an existing ooncrate morrurrent said point being bcated on the sou0rem line of
the Gabes M. Wag Property as described to Deed Book 167, Page 294 of the Davie County Registry;
thence with the aforesaid Charles M. Wall Property the following 4 courses and distances l) S 86°59W
E crossing an existing concrete monument at a distance of 589.75 fed for a total distance of 1,390.92
feet to existing comets monument 2) N 04108'14" E a distance of 698.37 feet to an exhft concrete
monument 3) 8 86°34'10" E a distance d 389.16 feet to an edsfatg conaefe mariuent 4) with a
portion of the Charles M. Wall property fine and with the southern property fine of Clefts W. Sheets as
hereinafter referenced 8 86°35'24" E a distaroe of 1, 128.39 but to an existing concrete monument said
taint being located at the southeast comer of the Charles W. Sheets Property as described in Deed Book
382, Page 953 of the Davie County Registry, said point also being located on the western fine of the
Patsy C. Chaffin Property as described In Deed Book 91, Page 48 of the Davie County Registry; thence
with the aforesaid Patsy C. Chaffin Property the following 2 courses and distances: 1) 8 05"24'05' W a
distance of 903.09 feet to an existing concrete monument 2) S 88°44'42" E crossing an existing concrete
monument at a distance of 1,092.66 feet for a total distance of 1,232.87 feet tothe POINT OF
BEGINNING; Containing 311.14 acres as shown on a survey by R.B. Pharr and Associates PA dated
March 15, 2009, (Map Fite W- 3770).
3-

0894: 8K894 PCM
0260
FXffiBIT A -1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Grantor does hereby convey unto Grantee, without any warranty of any nature, the following
described property:
311.14 acres — Shady Grove Township
916 Baltimore Road
That certain parcel of land, situated, lying and being in the Shady Grove Township, Davie
County, North Carolina, and being more particularly descn1W as follows:
To locate the true Beginning Point, COMMENCE at NOS Monument "BALTIMORE ", (having
NC GRID NAD93 coordinates of N: 809,695.72 ft and E: 1,56.8,412.60 f , with combined grid
factor. 0.99991670) and nm thence N 19 °59'16" E a horizontal ground distance of 238.72 feet to
a calculated point located in the centerline of Baltimore Road (a 60' public road right -of -way),
which calculated point is the true POINT OF BEGINNING (said point having NC GRID
NAD93 coordinates of N: 809,920.05 R and E:1,568,494.19 ft) aad running thence along and
with the centerline of Baltimore Road the following six (6) courses and distances: (1) S
11030'18" W a distance of 104.26 feet to a calculated point; (2) S 10°19'18" W a distance of
100.00 feet to a calculated point; (3) & 07001118" W a distance of 100.00 feet to a calculated
point, (4) S,03 040118" W a distance of 79.13 feet to a calculated point; (5) S 02°59118" W a
distance of 1,267.81 feet to a calculated point; and (6) S 02 648'18" W a distance of 912.13 feet
to a calculated paint; thence fording and leaving the centerline of Baltimore Road and Homing
along and with seven (7) courses and distances with the property of Davie County Economic
Development Commission, Inc„ now or fon*Tly, (see deed recorded in Book 876, Page 148 and
see also plat recorded in Map'Book 11, Pages 70-73, Davie County Public Registry ["DCPR'])
as follows: (1) N 87°09153" W, crossing an existing nail at a distance of 31.51 feet, for a total
distance of 2,659.86 feet to an existing iron pipe; (2) S 02°50'01" W a distance of 99.98 feet to
an existing iron pipe; (3) N 87°09144" W a distance of 290.04 feet to an existing iron pipe; (4) N
02 °52125" E a distance of 19.89 feet to an existing iron pipe; (5) N 87°10'12" W, crossing as
existing iron pipe at a distance of 1, 250.18 feet, for a total distance of 1,36116 feet to an existing
iron rod; (6) N 02 °50'22" E a distance of 1,534.79 feet to an existing iron rod said point being
located N 87°1010" W a distance of 110.98 feet from an existing iron rod; and (7) N 87010'10"
W a distance of 806.78 feet to an existing iron pipe, said pipe being located on the eastern line of
property of Jeanette A. Cook, now or formerly, (see deed recorded in Deed Book 66, Page 206,
DCPR); thence running along and with the property of Jeanette A. Cook, now or formerly, N
25°58'43" E, crossing an existing concrete monument at a distance of 932.46 feet, for a total
distance of 1,39538 feet to an existing concrete monument, said concrete monument being
located on the southern line of property of Brian W. Home; now or formerly, (see deed recorded
in Dad Book 569, Page 500, DCPR); thence running along and with the southern line of the
aforesaid Brian W. Horne property, now or formerly, and thence with a portion of the southern
line of property of Charles M. Wall, now or formerly, (see deed recorded in Deed Book 167,
Page 294, DCPR) S 86 °39100" E a distance of 492.31 fat to an existing concrete monument;
-4-

0894
0261
OK8g4PG2b I
thence continuing to run along and with lines of property of Charles M. Wall, now or formerly,
the following four (4) courses and distances: (1) S 86 05924" E, crossing an existing concrete
monument at a distance of 589.75 feet, for a total distance of 1,390.92 feet to an existing
concrete movement; (2) N 04609114" E a distance of 69837 _feet to an existing concrete
monument, (3) S 86°34'10" E a distance of 389.16 feet to an existing concrete monument; and
(4) with a portion of the Charles M. Wall property line and then continuing along and with a
southern line of property of Charles W. Sheets, now or formerly, (see deed recorded in Deed
Book 382, Page 953, DCPR) S 86035124" E a distance of 1,12839 feet to an existing concrete
monument, said concrete monument being located at the southeast comer of the property of
Charles W. Sheets, now or formerly, on the western line of property of Patsy C. Chafftn, now or
formerly, (see deed recorded in Deed Book 91, Page 48, DCPRr thence running along and with
fines of property of Patsy C. Chaffin, now or formerly, the following two (2) courses and
distances: (1) S 05124'05" W a distance of 903.09 feet to an existing concrete monument and (2)
S 86 °44'42" E, crossing an existing concrete. monument at a distance of 1,092.66 feet, for a total
distance of 132.87 feet to a calculated point located in the centerline of Baltimore Road, the
POINT OF B19GI14NING; Containing 311.14 acres, more or less, as shown on a survey
prepared by Andrew B. Baker, PLS L#L 4542, with R.B. Pharr and Associates P.A. dated May
8, 2012, (Map File W- 3770A).
-5-

0894 SK84�Pc, 2b2
0262
EXHIBIT B
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
[insert tide policy Schedule B-II exceptions]
Morehead Title Company
1805 EM eouhvum. Cbazloae: MC 28203
704116.1230 800.671 -7086 pdz; 704.716.1231
Revioed, 05 -L6 -2012 at 09:59im
00041twnt: 12.9,99
Ov0'ei, A01W PA-gA tare taduaYrias 1a
prop0gty! m6b- Parcel 1 app— 107
acres /Parcel 2 app= 311.14
Wes
Schedule B - II - axceptions
The policy or policies to be issued will contain the following
exceptions unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company, including any changes in title occurring subsequent to the
effective date of this commitment and prior to the date of issuance of
the title policy:
1. Taxes for the year 2012 and subsequent years, not yet dne and
payable.
4. Building restriction lines, easements and other matters shown on
plat recorded in Map Book 3, Page(s) 121, Davie County Registry.
-6-

0894 g 2b3
0263
F.NMfr B
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
[insert We policy Schedule B-H exceptions]
Morehead Title Company
180 east IIOnIMW. chatluus. MC 28201
704716.1230 X0NG71.70X6 Fax: [phone]
Ravieed: 05 -L6 -2012 at 09c59am
Cat®Ltme.t: 12 -949
Owar, Ashley futniture Industriee In
Property: sorb- Parcel 1 apprOX 307
acres /farce: 2 appr= 311.14
soma
sche8ule B - II - Exceptions
The policy or policies to be issued will contain the following
exceptions unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company, including any changes in title occurring subsequent to the
effective date of this commitment and prior to the date of issuance of
the title policy:
1. Taxes for the year 2012 and subsequent years, not yet due said
payable.
4. Building restriction lines, easements and other matters shown on
plat recorded in Map Book 3, Page(s) 121, Davie County Registry.
-5-

0894
0264
RKSg4PG264
;DE 10T P NS r ► .. "E
DATE By
T MUS R
LO -1
'WIt1LECMMMI ATta49MATED
Eidw Tax: $0.00
005
J X22, 2012 Ala:2�6 PH
OAU
A10f BIB00K 894 PAGE 264
ALOWNW,W, OFOM
INIM
Recording Information
Drafted by: Henry P. Van troy, H, Attorney at 1ASr, MotbwMe, North Carolina 27028
Mail to: Grantee ® Ashley Furniture Industries, lnL, Tax Department, One Ashley Way, Arcadia, W154612
Tax Map: F-7, Parcel 18.11
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this 16- day of QaA2 2012, by and between
GRANTOR:
Davie County Economic Development Commission, Inc.
GRANTEE: -
Ashley Fumiture Industries, Inc.
REQUIRED INFORMATION:
The address of the Grantor is:
123 South Main Street
Mocksville, NC 27028
The address of the Grantee is:
One Ashley Way
Arcadia, WI 54612

0894 MgL,pc255
0265
Primary Residence Information:
The Property described in Exhibit A does not include the primary residence of the Grantor.
WITNESSETH:
THE GRANTOR, for valuable consideration paid by the GRANTEE, receipt o�whichis
acknowledged, has and by these presents does convey unto the GRANTEE in fee simple, interest
in that certain parcel of land situated ( the " Property") in Shady Grove, Township, Davie County,
North Carolina and more particularly described on attached "Exhibit A."
THE'GRANTOR acquired the Property by deed recorded in Book 870, Page 148 in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Davie County.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property and all privileges and appurtenanoes thereto
belonging to the GRANTEE in fee simple.
TAE GRANTOR COVENANTS with the GRANTEE, that the GRANTOR has done
nothing to impm rsuch title as the GRANTORreceived, andthe GRANTORwill warrant and defend
the title against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, under or through the GRANTOR,
except for the exceptions stated below.
Title to the Property is subject to the following exceptions:
1. Any right, easement, setback, interest, claim, encroachment, encumbrance, violation,
variation, or other adverse circumstance affecting the Title disclosed by plat(s)
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 121.
Z, Usual undefined domestic utility easements
3, Title to any portion of the band lying within the right ofway of S.R/ 1630 (Baltimore
Road).
4. Subject to Lease with easement of ingress and egress to Duke Power Company
recorded in Book 100, Page 327.
2. Ad valorem taxes for 2012 and subsequent years.
3. Matters shown on the Plat referred to in Exhibit A.
The designation GRANTOR and GRANTEE as used herein include the masculine and the
feminine, the singular and the plural, as the context requires, and the heirs, successors, and assigns
of the parties hereto.

0894
0266
BK89ftPC2bb
IN W11MSS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this instrument to be executed by
its duly authorized President the day and year first above written.
GRANTOR
Davie County, mimic Development Commission, Inc.
By
ny Bralley, President
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DAVIE
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging
to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose stated herein and in the
capacity indicated: (here state names ojprincipals offleelcapacity
TERRY BRALLEY, President of the Davie County Economic Development Commission, Inc.
This LTday of 2012.
if
Official Signature of Notary
(Offid l wail !,&
4ge' C. �✓.tdQill�et eJ
Notary's printed or typed name, Notary Public
My commission expires• 09 44 -16'

0894
0267
EXHIBIT A
OK8R4PG2bI
TRACT 1, consisting of 210.903 acres as shown on a Plat recorded in Plat Book 11, Pages 70, 71,
72 and 73 in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Davie County, which Plat was prepared by
Tutterow Surveying, Inc. dated April 11, 2012, Drawing # 10311 -3A through 10311 -3D, which Plat
is incorporated herein by reference.
TRACT 2, consisting of 150 acres as shown on a Plat recorded in Plat Book 11, Pages 70, 71, 72
and 73 in the Office ofthe Register ofDeeds ofDavie County, which Plat was prepared by Tutterow
Surveying, Inc. dated April 11, 2012, Drawing # 10311 -3A through 10311 -3D, which Plat is
incorporated herein by reference.
X.%MySksVI -k Vmr HgP4micipWVavie County - Top Dm , special - warranty deed. A, apn7 2012.wpd
NTEH: 8588.8

Map
Number
PIN
Owner Name
Mailing Address
1
5860157428
Danny L. Robertson, Robin G. Robertson
1622 Wharf Road
Lexington, NC 27292
2
5860157940
Laura R. Hatley
20146 -A NC Highway 73
Albemarle, NC 28001
3
5860167371
Kevin Carter Robinson
2021 White Cedar Lane
Waxhaw, NC 28173
4
5860168709
Jennifer Leigh Luper
908 Danbrook Court
Lincolnton, NC 28092
5
5860179028
John C. Marshall
149 Lera Lane
Mocksville, NC 27028 -7854
6
5860087154
John Carr Marshall, Adna Francis Marshall
149 Lera Lane
Mocksville, NC 27028 -7854
7
5860087154
James Audrey Carter (et al)
1386 Perryman Road
c/o Hulchey James
Lexington, NC 27295
8
5860205930
Jeanette A. Cook
210 Toggenburg Lane
Mocksville, NC 27028 -7835
9
5861400637
Brian W. Horne, Leslie L. Horne
228 Blue Bird Lane
Mocksville, NC 27028 -7764
10
5861515293
Charles Michael Wall
255 Riverstone Trail
Advance, NC 27006
11
5861619247
Charles W. Sheets, Cindy D. Sheets
632 Juney Beauchamp Road
Advance, NC 27006
12
5861800318
Patsy C. Chaffin
738 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006
13
5860897927
Lena P. Wall
781 Baltimore Road
c/o Pam Harpe
Advance, NC 27006
14
5860896865
Robert Neal Comatzer, Lisa Comatzer
797 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006 -7817
15
5870192360
Robert Kenneth Comatzer,
203 Gun Club Road
Deborah P. Comatzer
Advance, NC 27006
16
5860895123
Ashley A. Latham
109 Quail Hollow Drive
Advance, NC 27006
17
5860885709
James R. Newman, Judith A. Newman
108 Quail Hollow Drive
Advance, NC 27006
18
5860884582
Gary K. Plummer, Renee T. Plummer
109 Canton Road
Advance, NC 27006 -7865
19
5860884250
Robert L. Fox III, Crystal B. Fox
106 Canton Road
Advance, NC 27006
20
5860874898
Ved Amarsingh
945 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006
21
5860874792
Janie M. Minton
439 Bing Crosby Boulevard
Advance, NC 27006 -8511
22
5860874478
Christopher M. Angell, Nina C. Angell
112 Longleaf Pine Drive
Advance, NC 27006

Map
Number
PIN
Owner Name
Mailing Address
23
5860874266
Timothy M. Floyd, Theresa A. Floyd
997 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006
24
5860879057
James T. Cornatzer, Annie B. Cornatzer
1001 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006 -7820
25
5860865798
Sally Elizabeth Cornatzer,
1001 Baltimore Road
James Thomas Cornatzer (et al)
Advance, NC 27006 -7820
26
5860864593
Gordan Gray Cornatzer, Lyndia J. Cornatzer
1049 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006
27
586089131
Stacy Cornatzer, Billy Cornatzer
279 Baltimore Road
mailing — Albert Cornatzer)
Advance, NC 27006
28
5860853698
Byran A. Ogle, Anita B. Ogle
111 Montclair Drive
Advance, NC 27006 -7096
29
5860853481
William Wayne Loggins,
108 Montclair Drive
Tommie Tuttle Loggins
Advance, NC 27006 -7096
30
5860854156
Guy J. Cornatzer, Jr., Marcelle B. Cornatzer
305 Montclair Drive
Advance, NC 27006
31
5860844974
Timothy H. Westbrook, Patricia E. Westbrook
1171 Baltimore Road
Advance, NC 27006
32
5860841815
David P. Watts, Dolly H. Watts
110 Baltimore Downs Road
Advance, NC 27006
33
5860748821
Steve Cao, Ha Nguyen
122 Baltimore Downs Road
Advance, NC 27006 -7879
34
5860745687
Larue H. Creson, Jeffrey S. Creson
138 Baltimore Downs Road
Advance, NC 27006
35
5860646971
Brian Monk
138 Baltimore Trails Lane
Advance, NC 27006
36
5860549986
Bobby Cundiff Nance, Margaret J. Nance
113 Willsborough Road
Winston - Salem, NC 27104
37
5860448972
Jennifer F. Crain
1744 Carraughmore Road
Clemmons, NC 27012
38
5860348940
Richard G. Kohl, Joanne E. Kohl
352 Baltimore Trails Lane
Advance, NC 27006
39
5860232602
Barbara D. Smith
308 Kilckitat Trail
Mocksville, NC 17028-7311
ECS has attached addressed, postage paid envelopes for each of the adjoining owners
listed above.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION p_
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................. ..............................1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................4
1.1
Project Description .............................. ..............................! ........... ..............................4
1.2
Purpose and Need of Proiect ........................................................ ..............................4
2.0
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................... ..............................6
2.1
Background ................................................................................... ..............................7
2.2
Site Reconnaissance ..................................................................... ..............................8
2.3
Streams ......................................................................................... ..............................9
2.4
Wetlands ...................................................................................... .............................11
2.5
Vegetation .................................................................................... .............................13
2.6
Cultural Resources ....................................................................... .............................15
2.7
Biological Resources /Endangered Species .................................. .............................15
3.0
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ........................................................... .............................17
4.0
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. .............................19
5.0
PROPOSED IMPACTS ...... : .........:................................................... .............................20
6.0
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION .................................................. .............................21
7.0
PROPOSED MITIGATION ............................................................... .............................21
8.0
CORRESPONDENCE / REFERENCES ............................................. .............................23
9.0
APPENDICES ................................................................................ ...............................
24

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19,'2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This environmental report was prepared by ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) for use by Ashley
Furniture Industries, Inc. (Ashley), the "applicant" in obtaining an individual permit that will allow
the construction of a 2,304,100 square foot building expansion, an intermodal yard including
one linear mile of railroad track and associated parking. Stream and wetland impacts are
required for the completion of the proposed project. The purpose of the Environmental Report
is to provide sufficient information that will enable the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to evaluate the proposed project.
The project purpose is to develop an approximate 667.63 acre tract of land that has been
acquired by Ashley with a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and distribution facility
capable of incorporating future technological advances to allow the facility to remain viable into
the future. The expansion of the furniture manufacturing and distribution facility will enable it to
be operated in a cost efficient manner to compete in the global furniture industry for years to
come. The expanded facility cannot be constructed in a manner that is similar to or limited by
traditional manufacturing layouts, which have proven to be inefficient.
The site is currently developed with approximately 1.7 million square feet of industrial structures
that include a maintenance garage with fuel storage area, thirty -two warehouse /storage
buildings and an approximate 418,078 square foot warehouse /manufacturing facility. The
existing maintenance garage will be utilized as is with minimal updates. The existing thirty-two
warehouse storage units, approximately 37,200 + /- square feet in size, will be utilized for lumber
drying activities, raw material storage and serve as storage areas for over -flow of finished
goods.
To compete with growing demands for goods in today's market and in order for the property to
be developed for its intended use, Ashley requires an additional 2,304,100 new building square
footage that will connect to the existing warehouse /manufacturing facility. The
warehouse /manufacturing facility will be expanded in four phases of construction: 1) 620,075
feet and 115 trailer docks; 2) 902,079 square feet and 181 trailer docks; 3) 509,871 square feet
and 98 trailer docks; and, 4) 272,075 square feet and 51 trailer docks. The completed
manufacturing and distribution center will provide a total of 438 docks to load /unload materials.
A railroad spur is located on the southeastern portion of the site. The railroad spur forks on the
central portion of the site to the north and south of the existing distribution
warehouse /manufacturing facility. An intermodal yard which includes the addition of
approximately one mile of railroad and storage areas for 200 intermodal containers are needed
because of increasing transportation /fuel costs. The intermodal yard and addition of one mile
of railroad track will be completed in a fifth phase of construction.
Inadequate parking areas are currently located in the vicinity of existing structures. To reduce
time and fuel expenses, 830 trailer spots and 1,939 automobile spaces are required in the
immediate vicinity of the manufacturing /distribution center and /or the intermodal yard. Another
1,370 trailer spots are proposed to be located east of the completed manufacturing and
distribution facility

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid:Allantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Since 1982, Ashley's sales have increased an annual average of 21.28 %. Ashley has
competed with over -seas and domestic markets with significantly lower production /operational
costs due to the advancements in operational /production efficiencies and its transportation
system. In spite of developing the largest transportation fleet in the industry, Ashley can not
efficiently compete without having a manufacturing and distribution facility located along the
east coast. Transportation of goods from Ashley's current facilities is not a viable option for the
future. Therefore, the need to construct a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and
distribution center in North Carolina is essential to Ashley's short and long term business
model.
The expansion of the site is paramount to the continued growth and success of Ashley.
However, to facilitate the proposed project, there will be unavoidable impacts to 316 linear feet
of stream and 4.089 acres of wetlands. There are approximately 12,460 linear feet of stream
channel and approximately 9.461 acres of wetlands located on the site. The design has taken
into account expected growth models, increases in the volume of transportation of
goods /services in the geographic area capable of being serviced by the proposed facility and to
be capable of incorporating advances /improvements in technology into the facilities operations.
The project, as being proposed, will meet the current and future needs for this facility. The site
design, as being proposed, allows for future development to occur in upland areas with little to
no impact on streams, wetlands and /or the environment. Additional impacts to streams or
wetlands beyond those that are proposed in this project are not anticipated.
Ashley has completed an extensive alternatives analysis in the attempt to determine the most
plausible preferred alternative with a minimal impact to the environment. The alternatives
analysis identifies their needs, how alternatives to the proposed action affect those needs, any
major direct environmental consequences and discussion of the practicality, from an efficiency
of operations stand - point, for each alternative. Prior to the purchase of the Advance facility,
Ashley reviewed, examined and rated seven potential sites in North Carolina. Following the
purchase of the facility, twelve alternatives, including the no -build alternative, were examined.
Following Ashley's extensive alternatives analysis, the preferred alternative was selected due to
limited impacts on the environment and the costs of development, production and operation.
The preferred alternative, when compared to other possible on -site alternatives has a total cost
differential that ranges from 48.9 to 138.2 million dollars.
During design of the proposed project, Ashley has incorporated several design techniques to
avoid and minimize the impact to streams, wetlands and the environment. Design
specifications that avoid and minimize impact to streams and wetlands include final slopes
being constructed on 2.5:1 rather than typical 3:1, the use of retaining walls and discharging
culverts via rip -rap lined channels instead of using standard rip-rap dissipaters (View exhibit
drawings in Appendix II).
The sequence of construction phases has been designed to have less areas of exposed /bare
soil than if land disturbance activities for multiple phases and /or all five phase were
simultaneously performed. During construction of each of the phases of the project, erosion
control measures will be implemented to avoid sediment runoff into nearby streams. Silt
fencing and additional erosion control measures /devices will be used to prevent erosion and
capture sediment. Disturbed areas will be immediately reseeded to prevent erosion and
2

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
sedimentation runoff into streams. Stockpiling excavated soil will be avoided where possible. If
temporary stock piling is necessary, it will be bermed with bales of hay and or covered to
prevent excessive run -off.
There are approximately 12,460 linear feet of stream channel and approximately 9.461 acres of
wetlands located on the site. The design has taken into account expected growth models,
increases in the volume of transportation of goods /services in the geographic area capable of
being serviced by the proposed facility and to be capable to incorporate
advances /improvements in technology into the facilities operations. The project, as being
proposed, will meet the current and future needs for this facility. The site design, as being
proposed, allows for future development to occur in upland areas with little to no impact on
streams, wetlands and/or the environment. Additional impacts to streams or wetlands beyond
those that are proposed in this project are not anticipated.
Ashley has shown an attempt to avoid and minimize where possible and will compensate to the
extent practicable, for remaining unavoidable losses with mitigation. The proposed project will
unavoidably impact 316 linear feet of mitigable intermittent and perennial stream channel and
4.089 acres of wetlands. Of the 4.089 acres of wetlands, the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Model (NCWAM) rated 1.057 acres of wetlands as low quality. The remaining
3.032 acres of wetlands were rated as high quality. Based on recommendations by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Ashley proposes a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for the high quality wetland
impacts and stream impacts and a 1:1 ratio for low quality wetland impacts.
Ashley proposes to compensate for fill impacts for the construction of the proposed project by
offering payment into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Private mitigation banks,
in the watershed of the proposed project, do not have credits available at this time. At the
ratios proposed, Ashley will receive 632 linear feet of stream credits and 7.25 acres of wetlands
credits, which will meet and/or exceed mitigation payment requirements. An EEP acceptance
letter is included as an attachment.
The stream and wetland impacts being proposed within this permit application are part of
Ashley's long term occupancy of the site. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed
project and complicated construction sequence which could take up to 20 years to complete, it
may not be viable that impacts requested in this permit will be performed within the five year
time span. Therefore, it may be necessary to apply for an extension in the future.
The Ashley Advance facility has already undergone a positive impact to the area by the use and
aesthetic improvements of a long time vacant manufacturing facility, improvements to Baltimore
Road and the addition of numerous employment opportunities to the citizens of North Carolina.
Ashley expects the need for over 1,000 jobs for the built out site design. In addition, state and
local businesses, including contractors, transportation companies and general laborers will be
utilized during and following site expansion; thus, further increasing the social and economic
benefits of the proposed project. State and local economies will be bolstered following the site
expansion by significant increases in taxes paid by Ashley and its employees. The proposed
site expansion is vital to Ashley's current and future business model as a dominant furniture
manufacturer and distributor. Citizens of the area and local /state governments will see
significant benefits from the proposed project.

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proiect Description
The project purpose is to develop an approximate 667.63 acre tract that has been acquired by
Ashley with a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and distribution facility capable of
incorporating future technological advances to allow the facility to remain viable into the future.
The site is currently developed with approximately 1.7 million square feet of industrial structures
that include a maintenance garage with fuel storage area, thirty-two warehouse /storage
buildings and an approximate 418,078 square foot warehouse /manufacturing facility. The
existing maintenance garage will be utilized as is with minimal updates. The existing thirty -two
warehouse storage units, approximately 37,200 + /- square feet in size, will be utilized for lumber
drying activities, raw material storage and will serve as storage areas for over -flow of finished
goods.
To compete with growing demands for goods in today's market and in order for the property to
be developed for its intended use, Ashley requires an additional 2,304,100 new building square
footage that will adjoin the existing warehouse /manufacturing facility. The
warehouse /manufacturing facility will be expanded in four phases of construction: 1) 620,075
feet and 115 trailer docks; 2) 902,079 square feet and 181 trailer docks; 3) 509,871 square feet
and 98 trailer docks; and, 4) 272,075 square feet and 51 trailer docks. The completed
manufacturing and distribution center will provide a total of 438 docks to load /unload materials.
A railroad spur is located on the southeastern portion of the site. The railroad spur forks on the
central portion of the site to the north and south of the existing distribution
warehouse /manufacturing facility. An intermodal yard which includes the addition of
approximately one mile of railroad and storage areas for 200 intermodal containers are needed
to compete against increasing transportation/fuel costs. The intermodal yard and addition of
one mile of railroad track will be completed in a fifth phase of construction.
Inadequate parking areas are currently located in the vicinity of existing structures. To reduce
time and fuel expenses, 830 trailer spots and 1,939 automobile spaces are required in the
immediate vicinity of the manufacturing /distribution center and/or the intermodal yard. Another
1,370 trailer spots are proposed to be located east of the completed manufacturing and
distribution facility.
Stream and wetland impacts are required to facilitate the expansion of the
manufacturing /distribution center, intermodal yard/railroad spur and adequate parking. The
stream and wetland impacts being proposed within this permit application are part of Ashley's
long term occupancy of the site. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed project and
complicated construction sequence which could take up to 20 years to complete, it may not be
viable that impacts requested in this permit will be performed within the five year time span.
Therefore, it may be necessary to apply for an extension in the future.
1.2 Purpose and Need of Project
The project purpose is to develop an approximate 667.63 acre tract that has been acquired by
Ashley with a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and distribution facility capable of
4

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
incorporating future technological advances to allow the facility to remain viable into the future.
The expansion of the furniture manufacturing and distribution facility will allow it to be operated
in a cost efficient manner to compete in the global furniture industry for years to come. The
expanded facility cannot be constructed in a manner that is similar to or limited by traditional
manufacturing layouts, which have proven to be inefficient and susceptible to failure.
Since 1982, Ashley's sales have increased an annual average of 21.28 %. Ashley has
competed with over -seas and domestic markets with significantly lower production /operational
costs due to the advancements in operational /production efficiencies and its transportation
system. In spite of developing the largest transportation fleet in the industry, Ashley can not
efficiently compete without having a manufacturing and distribution facility located along the
east coast. Transportation of goods from Ashley's current facilities is not a viable option for the
future. Therefore, the need to construct a state -of -the art furniture manufacturing and
distribution center in North Carolina is essential to Ashley's short and long term business
model.
Ashley's success in the last two decades has been in large part due to their ability to adapt to
changing consumer demands in the market place. One such example of this is their evolution
of new product lines and the development of Ashley Furniture HomeStore retail centers, which
offer a comprehensive array of household furniture products. Another example of this is
providing seven day delivery of customized loads of furniture to customers anywhere in the U.S.
or Canada. This delivery schedule allows customers to avoid carrying large inventories or
redistributing the furniture within their own chain of stores, cut overhead costs, compete
effectively with larger retailers who have greater inventory capacity, and operate a more
competitive business. Ashley relies on aggressively pursuing these small retailers and could
not effectively compete for these retailers' business without its large transportation fleet and
sufficient warehouse space to store what the retailer is no longer able to store. Ashley allows a
customer to pick any product (case goods, upholstery, top-of -bed products and accessories) in
any quantity they choose. Therefore, Ashley can deliver up to fourteen different product lines in
one delivery. To achieve a relatively short delivery time, Ashley must have these items in stock
for deliveries at the customer's convenience. The only way to ship products efficiently to
customers under these circumstances is to have all the products located in the same
warehouse /distribution facility to load varied shipments on one truck. Currently, more than half
of Ashley's shipments consist of mixed product loads and multiple deliveries for various
customers. Therefore, the need for a centralized ( "one roof") production and distribution center
is necessary for Ashley to meet the demands of their customers.
As a way to transport materials in a more timely manner with additional cost efficiency, Ashley
has developed a system using rail roads and intermodal containers. Shipping intermodal
storage containers by rail transport rather than over - the -road is more cost - effective because
railroad cars have higher weight limits than trucks. Rail car or container shipping is on average
$0.04 to $0.32 per cubic foot cheaper than conventional shipping by truck. Increases in
gasoline prices have increased this disparity. In addition, rail transport reduces the traffic
volume and product damage that could be caused by moving these containers on highways.
Therefore, the need to have the ability of proximity to access railroad, the space for an
intermodal yard and container storage area and the use of rail transport are required for Ashley
to compete in the market place.

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Trailer /container storage areas and a maintenance facility are imperative supplements to
Ashley's transportation and distribution system. An additional 2,200 trailer spaces, 200
intermodal container spaces and the use of an on -site maintenance facility are required for
Ashley to facilitate their transportation and distribution needs. Additionally, the need and
availability of 2,000 employee parking spaces in proximity to the manufacturing /distribution
facility is a necessity to the safety and morale of employees. There are significant safety
concerns with having employees and /or visitors crossing trailer parking /storage areas and
access lanes in addition to increased opportunity for vehicle accidents and damaged goods.
Off -site trailer /storage areas, maintenance facilities and /or employee parking is not an option
due to significant increases in safety for employees, operational costs, quality control and
assurances, production costs and efficiency of transportation. Ashley estimates that
transportation of trailers /containers from an off -site location would cost approximately $10.00
per mile per trip.
Production and operational efficiencies are another way that Ashley has been able to grow
sales and reach record profits over the last twenty years, even in an ever increasing competitive
international market. One such advancement in production /operational efficiency is the flow of
parts through the production/distribution facility. Ashley's experience shows that a linear flow of
material is vital to operating an efficient facility. A non - linear flow of materials and goods
increases product handling, employee time to move products, risk of collisions around comers
and separation walls, the risk to damage products, employee injuries and costs. The use of
technological advances, including the use of automated conveyor systems to move products
through a production area, mandates a linear flow path. To avoid these inefficiencies and use
technological advances that increase production efficiency, ,Ashley requires linear flow of
products and goods in the design of its facilities. Therefore, narrow rectangle shaped facilities
provide the optimal linear flow /paths and reduced costs versus square shaped facilities.
Another advancement in production /operation efficiency is adequate space for storage of parts
for assembly lines and/or finished goods. It is vital for assembly lines to have staging areas
large enough to store parts for three or four future assembly jobs. If there is not enough space
for assembly line part storage, then the entire assembly line can be shut down. This not only
effects Ashley's cost of production, but directly effects workers morale due to less pay because
of lost piece -rate incentives. Adequate inventory of finished products and goods are essential
to the operational efficiency of the facility. One of Ashley's strongest selling points is its ability
to deliver a customized load of furniture within a week to a customer. A centralized warehouse
complex that stores all of Ashley's products and has sufficient loading docks is crucial to
accomplishing this objective. In addition, studies have shown that optimal configuration for a
warehouse requires minimizing the number of turns and reducing the distance the forklifts must
travel between the product locations and the dock, thus further facilitating the need for a linear
facility configuration. Based on current conditions within the market place and anticipation of
additional product lines, a 2.3 million square foot building addition is required to the existing
facility for production and distribution needs. The building addition would supply an additional
400 loading docks that are a necessity to meet Ashley's transportation needs and the adequate
space for production and operational efficiencies to be met. The facility would incorporate
current advances in technology and have the ability to adapt to new product lines and further
technological advances.
6

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
2.0 Existing Site Conditions
2.1 Background
ECS has identified the locations of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the subject site.
ECS performed a delineation of jurisdictional waters at the site between April 2012 and May
2012. Prior to visiting the site, ECS reviewed the USGS Topographic Map, Advance, North
Carolina Quadrangle, the Soil Survey of Davie County, the Geologic map of North Carolina and
the National Wetland Inventory Maps, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain
information regarding the site.
The USGS Topographic Map (Figure 1) shows two unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek in
the proposed impact area. An unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek is located on the western
portion of the site. The three unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek merge approximately
2,800 feet south of the site. A pond is depicted on the southeastern portion of the site.
Several additional drainage swales that could contain streams or wetlands are depicted on
the 667.63 acre tract.
The USGS Topographic map shows railroad tracks on the eastem and central portions of
the site. The railroad tracks enter the site on the southeastern portion of the site. The rail
road tracks- fork near the central portion of the site, to the north and the south of the
proposed building addition.
r The USDA Soil Survey of Davie County (Figure 3) shows a stream consistent with one of
the unnamed tributaries depicted on the USGS Topographic map located within the
proposed project area. An unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek and a pond are depicted on
the larger 667.63 acre tract. Soils within the proposed building addition are mapped as:
- Mocksville sandy loam (MsC) — The Mocksville soil series consists of well drained,
moderately permeable soils that occur on piedmont uplands.
- Oak Level clay loam (OkB2) — The Oak Level soil series consists of well drained, slowly
permeable soils that occur on piedmont uplands.
- Rasolo fine sandy loam (RaB and RaC) — The Rasolo soil series consists of well
drained, moderately permeable soils that occur on piedmont uplands.
- Tomlin clay loam (ToB2) — The Tomlin soil series consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils that occur on piedmont uplands.
- Udorthents (Ud) — Udorthents consists of loamy /clayey mine spoil or earthy fill that are
typically well drained.
Codorus loam and Urban Land are mapped within the property boundaries. The Cordorus
soil series consists of moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils that occur on nearly level floodplains. Urban Land consists of soils that
have been altered in many places by the construction of buildings, roads /streets, parking

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
lots and by other urban development. The Codorus soil series is identified on the Hydric
Soils List for Davie County as having inclusions of the Hatboro soil series. The remainder of
the soils located on the site are not identified on the Hydric Soils List for Davie County.
• The Geologic Map of North Carolina indicates that the site is located in the Charlotte Belt of
the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The soils encountered in this area are the residual
product of in -place chemical weathering of rock presently underlying the site. In general,
shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the overlying soils is controlled largely by
topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and
typically discharges into streams or other surface water bodies. The elevation of the
shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation. Movement in this water table is generally from higher to lower elevations.
• The National Wetland Inventory Map (Figure 4) shows a pond within the proposed impact
area. The pond shown within the proposed project area is a settling pond for the previously
used on -site waste system that will be abandoned prior to construction activities
commencing. A pond shown on the southeastern portion of the site is consistent with
feature shown on the USGS topographic map and the soil survey. In addition, the inventory
map shows a pond located near the southern property boundary.
2.2 Site Reconnaissance
ECS personnel conducted several site visits between April 2012 and September 2012. The
proposed project area consists of fields that have been previously cleared /graded and wooded
land. A former waste water treatment system including a settling pond is located within the
proposed building addition. The waste water treatment system and settling pond will be
abandoned in accordance with local and state regulations prior to construction activities. The
cleared /graded land contains mixed grasses and weeds and is regularly mowed. The wooded
land contains mixed hardwoods.
The site is developed with approximately 1.7 million square feet of industrial structures that
include a maintenance garage with fuel storage area, thirty -two warehouse /storage buildings
and a distribution warehouse /manufacturing facility. A railroad spur is located on the
southeastern portion of the site. The railroad spur forks on the central portion of the site to the
north and south of the existing distribution warehouse /manufacturing facility. Parking areas are
located in the vicinity of the industrial buildings. An electricity sub - station is located on the
southern portion of the site. The remainder of the site contains a mixture of agricultural fields,
pasture -land and wooded land.
During our visits, we observed the site for evidence of streams, ponds and wetlands. Two
streams are located within the proposed area of impact. The streams contained stagnant water
and defined beds and banks. Based on our observations, the streams are intermittent and
perennial, respectively.
Wetland pockets were observed upgradient and next to the streams. Wetland Determination
Data Forms supporting our opinion are included as attachments. ECS flagged the centerlines
of the streams and boundary of the wetland pockets during our site visit. The stream and

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
wetland flags were verified in the field by Mr. Thomas. Figures 2 and 5 shows the approximate
locations of the streams and wetlands located within the proposed area of impact.
Several additional streams, wetlands and a pond were identified on the remainder of the 667.63
acre tract. Impacts to these features are not anticipated. The remaining streams, wetlands and
pond were delineated in the field by ECS and verified in the field by Mr. Thomas.
2.3 Streams
The subject property contains 14 streams. The streams have been classified as perennial and
intermittent. Stream descriptions are included in Table 1 below. See Figure 6 for stream
locations and identification.
E
r` 'd'@!'V — W. b`
9, , V • c o ` C u i
1T _ I '
Ca qqyy
1
Intermittent
975
0
2
Perennial
0
815
3
Perennial
0
3,580
4
Intermittent
620
0
5
Intermittent
165
0
6
Intermittent
330
0
7
Perennial
0
425
8
Perennial
0
1,925
9
Perennial
0
1,785
10
Perennial
0
880
11
Intermittent
80
0
12
Perennial
0
330
13
Perennial
0
275
14
Intermittent
275
0
Total:
2,445
10,015
E

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic, Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Stream 1 is located on the southwestern portion of the site and is intermittent throughout its,
entirety. It will not be impacted by the project. Stream 1 originates at ground water discharge;
point down - gradient to a wetland. Stream 1 is intermittent and contained no flowing water, a
weak to moderate bed and bank and weak to moderate substrate sorting. Stream 1 dissipates
into a wetland.
Stream 2 is located on the western portion of the site, is perennial throughout its entirety and
will not be impacted by the project. Stream 2 originates on -site at a culvert from an adjacent
property. Stream 2 contained flowing water throughout its entirety. Stream 2 contains a
moderately defined bed and banks, moderate to strong substrate sorting and meanders. Fringe
wetlands are located adjacent to the upper reach of Stream 2.
Stream 3 is a perennial stream located on the western portion of the site. Stream 3 will not be
impacted by the proposed project. Stream numbers 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are tributaries to Stream 3.
Stream 3 originates from an off -site pond. Stream 3 has a well defined bed and banks, flowing
water with a riffle pool sequence, and strong substrate sorting ranging from bedrock to silt and
gravel.
Stream 4 is an intermittent stream located on the western portion of the site and will not be
impacted by the proposed project. Stream 4 originates at a groundwater discharge point down -
gradient of a wetland and is a tributary to Stream 3. Stream 4 is relatively straight with a
defined bed and banks and portions contained stagnant water in deeper pools.
Stream 5 is located on the western portion of the site and up- gradient to wetlands. Stream 5'is
an intermittent stream that will not be impacted by the project. The stream is relatively straight
and portions contained a defined bed and banks and hydric soils. Stagnant/flowing water was
not observed in this stream.
Stream 6 is located on the northwestern portion of the site and originates from a groundwater
discharge point in a wetland. Stream 6 dissipates into a linear wetland pocket. Stream 6 has
an groundwater discharge point down - gradient of the linear wetland pocket in the vicinity of its
convergence with Stream 3. Stream 6 contains a weakly defined bed and banks, meanders
and hydric soils. Water was not observed in Stream 6.
Stream 7 is located on the southern portion of the site and forms at the convergence of
Streams 8 and 9. Stream 7 will not be impacted by the proposed project. Stream 7 has a well
defined bed and banks, moderate to strong flow characteristics with a riffle pool sequence, and
strong substrate sorting ranging from bedrock to silt.
Stream 8 is a perennial stream that originates on the central portion of the site. The majority of
Stream 8 will not be impacted by the proposed project. Stream 8 originates at a groundwater
discharge point down - gradient of a wetland and is a tributary to Stream 7. The upper reach of
Stream 8 (within the area of impact) is relatively straight with defined bed and banks, contains
moderate substrate sorting ranging from cobbles to silts and has hydric soils. There are limited
riffle -pool sequences within the upper reach of Stream 8. The upper reach of Stream 8 has not
contained flowing water at the time of our assessments, except within some of its deeper pools.
NCDENR -DWQ Stream Evaluation Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets prepared for the stream in the vicinity of the proposed impacts are included in
10

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Saltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Appendix 11. The lower reach of Stream 8 contains a defined bed and banks, meanders,
moderate to strong substrate sorting and flowing water with moderate to strongly defined riffle -
pool complexes. Fringe wetlands are located adjacent to Stream 8 throughout both reaches.
Stream 9 is a perennial stream, located on the southeastern portion of the site. Stream 9 will
not be impacted by the proposed project. Stream numbers 10, 12, 13 and 14 discharge to
Stream 9. Stream 9 has flowing water with strongly defined riffle -pool complexes. Stream 9
contains a well defined bed and banks, meanders and strong substrate sorting ranging from
bedrock to silts and gravel.
Stream 10 is located on the southeastern portion of the site and is a tributary to Stream 9.
Stream 10 originates from a culvert at the base of the railroad spur and will not be impacted by
the proposed project. Stream 10 is relatively straight with little to no meanders and contains
flowing water with low amounts of riffle -pool sequences. Stream 10 contains a defined bed and
banks and hydric soils. Fringe wetlands are located adjacent to the entirety of Stream 10.
Stream 11 is an intermittent stream and will not be impacted by the project. Stream 11
originates at the base of the railroad spur and discharges into Stream 10. Stream 11 contains a
defined bed and banks, meanders and hydric soils. Water was not observed in Stream 11.
Streams 12 and 13 are perennial streams that will not be impacted by the proposed project.
Streams 12 and 13 originate at culverts at the base of the railroad spur and are tributaries of
Stream 9. Streams 12 and 13 have well defined beds and banks, are relatively straight and
contained flowing vVater. Streams 12 and 13 are heavily rip - rapped with stone measuring 6 to
18 inches in diameter. Due to the amount of rip -rap that has been placed, in these channels,
these streams have little riffle -pool sequences. Fringe wetlands are located adjacent to Stream
13.
Stream 14 is an intermittent stream located on the central portion of the site and originates at a
point where hydric soils indicate the presence of groundwater discharge. The upper reach of
Stream 14 will be impacted by the proposed project. Stream 14 has a defined bed and banks,
is relatively straight without meanders and is heavily rip - rapped with stone measuring 6 to 12
inches in diameter. Stream 14 contains little riffle -pool complexes due to the excessive rip -rap.
Stream 14 has a low to moderate amount of substrate sorting ranging from gravel to silts.
Stream 14 has not contained flowing /stagnant water in the upper reach. The lower reach of
Stream 14 has contained stagnant water during our assessments. NCDWQ Stream Evaluation
Forms and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets prepared for the stream in the
vicinity of the proposed impacts are included in Appendix III. Wetlands are located adjacent to
the lower reach of Stream 14.
2.4 Wetlands
Descriptions of jurisdictional wetlands located on the site are included in Table 2. See Figure 7
for wetland locations and identification.

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
A
0.065
B
0.158
C
0.084
D
0.003
E
0.039
F
2.235
G
1.116
H
1.370
1
0.047 .
J
2.595
K
0.532
L
0.036
M
0.008
N
0.232
O
0.531
P
0.311
Q
0.099
Total:
9.461
Wetlands J, N, O and P are located within the proposed project area. The eastern most
extents of Wetland H are located within the proposed project area. The remainder of Wetland
H will not be impacted by the project. The NCWAM was used to determine the quality of the
wetlands. Copies of the NCWAM forms /ratings are included in Appendix IV. The wetlands are
separated from uplands by distinct breaks in topography and vegetative species. Upland areas
surrounding wetland areas have bright soils that are well drained to depths of twelve inches and
more below the ground surface.
Wetlands H and J are headwater forest wetlands. Streams are located down - gradient of these
wetlands. Typical vegetation including oaks, hickories, ashes, sycamores, beeches and cedars
are located in these wetlands. Invasive species including Japanese honeysuckle and common
green -briar are located in these wetlands. The NCWAM rated these wetlands as high quality.
Wetland N is a non -tidal freshwater marsh. An intermittent stream crosses the southern portion
of this wetland. This wetland is hydrologically connected to Wetland O by a culvert, located on
the northern boundary of this wetland. There are stronger indicators of hydrology, vegetation
and soils along the northern extents of this wetland. These indicators include but are not limited
to: an increase in drainage patterns, an increase in saturated /high water table soils, stronger
hydrophytic vegetation dominated by obligate species, buttressed tree trunks, higher organic
matter in soils (thicker /dark A soil horizon), and gleyed soils. Based on these observations, it
appears that the majority of the hydrology of this wetland is being provided by the culvert
connected to Wetland O. Vegetation including black willow, ash, cedar, sweet -gum, netted
chain -fern, and poison ivy are located in this wetland. The NCWAM rated this wetland as low
quality.
12

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Wetland O is a basin wetland. A flash -board riser is located near the southern boundary of this
wetland. The flash -board riser discharges to Wetland N. Surface run-off from developed
portions of the site provides hydrology to this wetland. Based on your observations, it appears
that this wetland is a former storm -water management device that has not been maintained.
Vehicle tracks and rutting were observed in this wetland. There is a lack of vegetative diversity
in this wetland. Vegetation, located in this wetland, is a monoculture of giant cane with limited
and sparse patches of black willow and cattail. The NCWAM rated this wetland as low quality.
Wetland P is a headwater forest wetland. An intermittent stream is located approximately 500
feet down - gradient of this wetland. A culvert, that discharges stormwater from developed
portions of the site, provides the majority of hydrology to this wetland. This wetland has been
altered by the addition of rip-rap stone placed in drainage patterns. Vegetation in this wetland
includes black willow, maple, sweet gum, ironweed, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry and
common green -briar. The majority of the tree species observed in this wetland are saplings
and /or had diameters at breast height of less than six inches. The NCWAM rated this wetland
as low quality.
The remaining wetlands will not be impacted by the project. The remaining wetlands can be
characterized as headwater forests, non -tidal freshwater marshes, seeps and floodplain pools.
Typical vegetation that was identified in the wetlands includes oak, hickory, ash, sycamore,
beech,. elm, dogwood, maple, sweet gum, cedar, American hombeam, honeysuckle, common
green -briar, sedges and rush species. Wetland Determination data forms are included in
Appendix V.
2.5 Venetation
The portion of the site that will be altered by the proposed project contains undeveloped,
wooded land and cleared /graded land. The proposed project area has been altered due to
clearing /grading associated with the development of the site as a cigarette
manufacturing /distribution facility in the early 1970s. The cleared/graded land, within the
proposed project limits, consists of mixed grass and weed species that is regularly maintained
by extensive mowing and herbicide applications. The area of impact within the previously
cleared /graded area includes the following species: Annual bluegrass (Poa annua), Fescue sp.
(festuca sp.), Bermudagrass (cynodon dactylon), Bahiagrass (Papsalum notatum), Centipede
grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), Crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare), White Clover (Trifolium repens), Curly Dock (Rumex
crispis), Fall Panicum ( Panicum dichotomiflorum), Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense),
Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Yellow
Woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), Wild Garlic (Allium vineale) and Wild Onion (Allium canadense).
The wooded land, located within the area of impact, contains approximately fifty percent mixed
hardwoods with species including oaks, elms, ashes, hickories, cedars and dogwoods. The
remaining fifty percent of the wooded areas consists of sapling species of pines and sweet
gums (Liquidambar styraciflua). The vegetation in the wooded areas consists of some invasive
species including microstegium (Eulalia viminea) and Japanese honeysuckle. The area of
impact, within the wooded area includes the following species:
13

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
14
Quercus alba
Canopy /Understory
White oak
Tree/Sap
FACU
Liriodendron tulipifera
Canopy /Understory
Julip poplar
Tree/Sap
FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Canopy /Understory
Green ash
Tree/Sap
FACW
Quercus phellos
Canopy/Understory
-Willow Oak
Tree/Sap
FACW
Carya tomentosa
Canopy/Understory
Mockernut hickory
Tree/Sap
NI
Acer rubrum
Canopy/Understory
Red maple
Tree/Sap
FAC
Pinus taeda
Midstory/Understory
Loblolly pine
Tree/Sap
FAC
Juniperus virginiana
Midstory/Understory
Eastern red cedar
Tree/Sap
FACU
Cornus florida
Midstroy /Understory
-DogWood
Tree/Sap
FACU
Ulmus alata
Midstory
Winged Elm
Tree/Sap
FACU
Liquidambar styraciflua
Midstory/Understory
Sweet Gum
Tree/Sap
FAC
Ulmus Americana
Midstory
American Elm
Tree
FACW
Salix nigra
Midstory/Understory
Black Willow
Tree/Sap
FACW
Lonicera japonica
Midstory/Understory
Japanese Honeysuckle
Vine /Herb
FAC
Vitis rotundifolia
Midstory/Understory
Muscadine grape
Vine /Herb
FAC
Toxicodendron radicans
Understory
Poison Ivy
Vine /Herb
FAC
Arundinaria gigantea
Understory
Giant Cane
Sap/Herb
FACW
Juncus roemeranus
Understory
Needlegrass Rush
Herb
OBL
Rubus betulifolius
Understory
-Blackberry
Shrub /Herb
FAC
Smilax rotundifolia
Understory
Green Briar
Vine /Herb
FAC
14

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid -Adank Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
2.6 Cultural Resources
ECS reviewed the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Web GIS Service map of
registered and eligible historic properties (Figure 8) and the North Carolina Listings in the
National Register of Historic Places, dated September 27, 2012. The North Carolina list and/or
the map does not identify registered or eligible historic properties within the proposed project
area and /or the site. The North Carolina list and map identity several previous /current
registered (or eligible) historic properties in the vicinity of the site. Based on our understanding
of the proposed project, it will not affect the nearby cultural resources.
The portion of the site that will be altered by the proposed project contains undeveloped,
wooded land and cleared/graded land. The proposed project area has been altered due to
clearing/grading associated with the previous development of the site as a cigarette
manufacturing/distribution facility in the early 1970s. The cleared/graded land, within the
proposed project limits, consists of mixed grass and weed species that is regularly maintained
by extensive mowing and herbicide applications. The wooded land, located within the area of
impact, contains approximately fifty percent mixed hardwoods with species including oaks,
elms, ashes, hickories, cedars and dogwoods. The remaining fifty percent of the wooded areas
consist of sapling species of pines and sweet gums (Liquidambar styraciflua). The vegetation
in the wooded areas consists of some invasive species including microstegium ( Eulalia viminea)
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). There will be no structures demolished, moved
or otherwise disturbed as part of this project. Therefore, there will be no impacts to structures
with historical significance.
2.7 Biological Resources /Endangered Species
ECS reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Database to obtain information regarding
federally listed protected, threatened, and endangered species that could be located on the site
or immediately adjacent properties. The quad status list prepared by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program is a listing by USGS quadrangles of the elements of natural diversity (rare
15
Eulalia viminea
Understory
Microstegium
Herb
FAC
Parthenocissus
Understory
quinquefolia
-Virginia inia Cree er
Herb
FAC
Carex typhina
Understory
Cat -tail Sedge
Herb
OBL
Polystichum
Understory
acrostichoides
Christmas Fern
Herb
FAC
Woodwrardia aerolata
Understory
Netted Chain Fem
Herb
OBL
Boehmeria cylindrica
Understory
False Nettie
Herb
FACW
2.6 Cultural Resources
ECS reviewed the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Web GIS Service map of
registered and eligible historic properties (Figure 8) and the North Carolina Listings in the
National Register of Historic Places, dated September 27, 2012. The North Carolina list and/or
the map does not identify registered or eligible historic properties within the proposed project
area and /or the site. The North Carolina list and map identity several previous /current
registered (or eligible) historic properties in the vicinity of the site. Based on our understanding
of the proposed project, it will not affect the nearby cultural resources.
The portion of the site that will be altered by the proposed project contains undeveloped,
wooded land and cleared/graded land. The proposed project area has been altered due to
clearing/grading associated with the previous development of the site as a cigarette
manufacturing/distribution facility in the early 1970s. The cleared/graded land, within the
proposed project limits, consists of mixed grass and weed species that is regularly maintained
by extensive mowing and herbicide applications. The wooded land, located within the area of
impact, contains approximately fifty percent mixed hardwoods with species including oaks,
elms, ashes, hickories, cedars and dogwoods. The remaining fifty percent of the wooded areas
consist of sapling species of pines and sweet gums (Liquidambar styraciflua). The vegetation
in the wooded areas consists of some invasive species including microstegium ( Eulalia viminea)
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). There will be no structures demolished, moved
or otherwise disturbed as part of this project. Therefore, there will be no impacts to structures
with historical significance.
2.7 Biological Resources /Endangered Species
ECS reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Database to obtain information regarding
federally listed protected, threatened, and endangered species that could be located on the site
or immediately adjacent properties. The quad status list prepared by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program is a listing by USGS quadrangles of the elements of natural diversity (rare
15

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center,
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
plant and animal species, exemplary natural communities, and, special animal habitats) known
to occur in North Carolina.
The site contains buildings that were formerly part of a cigarette manufacturing /distribution
facility, undeveloped, wooded land and fields (agricultural fields and pasture - land). The forest
types that are present on the site include bottomland and upland hardwoods. A small pond and
unnamed tributaries to the Buffalo Creek are located on the site.
The intermittent and perennial streams that will be impacted by the proposed project have not
contained flowing water during our site visits. ECS observed the streams to assess their value
as aquatic habitat. During our site visits, water was only observed in the streams deeper pools.
The water was stagnant and there was little evidence of aquatic life observed. Common
aquatic wildlife including crayfish burrows and frogs were observed in the lower reach of the
perennial stream that will be impacted by the proposed project. Aquatic life was not observed
in the intermittent stream that will be impacted by the proposed project. Based on our
observations, the streams are of low quality and have minimal value as habitat for aquatic
wildlife.
The lower reaches (majority of the streams) that will not be impacted by the proposed project
have more defined riffle -pool complexes and stronger substrate sorting. These areas are more
valuable than the upper reaches for aquatic habitat. Scuds, damsel fly casings, damsel flies
and several species of aquatic worms were observed in the lower reaches of the perennial
stream. Many of the'species observed do not depend on flowing water to survive.
The portion of the site that will be altered by the proposed project contains wooded land and
cleared /graded land. The proposed project area has been altered due to clearing /grading
associated with the development of the site as a cigarette manufacturing/distribution facility in
the early 1970s. The cleared /graded land, within the proposed project limits, consists of mixed
grass and weed species that is regularly maintained by extensive mowing and herbicide
applications. The wooded land, located within the area of impact, contains approximately fifty
percent mixed hardwoods with species including oaks, elms, ashes, hickories, cedars and
dogwoods. The remaining fifty percent of the wooded areas consists of sapling species of
pines and sweet gums (Liquidambar styraciflua). The vegetation in the wooded areas consists
of some invasive species including microstegium (Eulalia viminea) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
The site is located in Davie County within the Advance, North Carolina Quadrangle. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program website does not identify federally listed endangered or
threatened species that have been identified on this quadrangle. The following species of
importance are identified on the quadrangle:
Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus) — a vertebrate animal that is considered to be a current
state listed- significantly rare species. A detailed survey to determine if this species
occurs on the site has not been performed. Its habitat is typically highly productive
streams that are moderately deep and clear. The areas of stream impacts have not
contained flowing water during the time of our assessments. Therefore, this habitat
occurs on the site but is not within the proposed area of impact.

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid- Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
• , Eastern Small Footed Myotis ( Myotis leibil) - a vertebrate animal that is considered to be
a current federal and state listed species of concern. A detailed survey to determine if
this species occurs on the site has not been performed. Its habitat is typically caves and
mines but has been identified in summer months under rocks on ridges, cracks in rock
faces and outcrops, beneath bridge expansion joints, abandoned mines and buildings.
Winter habitat (caves and mines) are not located on the site. There will be no impact to
critical habitat (existing buildings) capable of containing these species during the
proposed project.
• Crested Coralroot (Haxalextris spicata) - a vascular plant that is considered to be a
historical state listed - significantly rare periphery. A detailed survey to determine if this
species occurs on the site has not been performed. Its habitat is typically associated
with calcareous soils beneath dry woodlands in the Blue Ridge physiographic province,
rocky woods and woodland stream margins. Critical habitat for this species does not
exist within the proposed project area.
• Drummond Moss (Orthotrichum strangulatum) - a vascular plant that is considered to be
a historical state listed - significantly rare periphery. A detailed survey to determine if this
species occurs on the site has not been performed. Its habitat is exclusively on dry,
exposed calcareous or dolomitic bluffs and rock faces. Critical habitat for this species
does not exist in the area of impact.
The Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center will be constructed in a
manner that will have minimal impact to the environment. Many areas have been previously
impacted by clearing and grading. The majority of the site will remain in a natural condition.
Potential habitat for these species and many other plants and animals that are not identified
above will remain on the site.
3.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Prior to construction activities taking place, the existing on -site sewage treatment system,
including the former sewage holding pond, will be abandoned in accordance with applicable
state and local regulations. A sanitary sewer line and pump station will be constructed in high
ground. There are no stream /wetland impacts proposed for the installation of the sanitary
sewer line and /or pump station. The abandonment of the existing sewer system and the
installation of the sanitary sewer line /pump station will be performed by Davie County prior to
the proposed project beginning construction activities. Prior to construction activities
commencing for each of the following phases of construction, the required erosion and
sedimentation control measures /devices will be installed and the grading limits of the phase will
be cleared /graded and prepared for construction. During and following the construction
activities of each phase, disturbed areas which will no longer be impacted by construction
activities will be immediately seeded and mulched following earth - moving activities.
17

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
Construction of the proposed project will be carried out in the following five phases /sequences:
1. Phase I
a. Installation of crush rock/stone access roads from the existing drive leading to
Baltimore Road
b. Construction of trailer parking along Baltimore Road
c. Construction of the 620,075 square foot building addition to the existing
warehouse /manufacturing facility
d. Construction of trailer /automobile parking in the vicinity of Phase I
e. Construction of automobile parking north /south of existing
warehouse /manufacturing facility
f. Construction of three story office
g. Construction of asphalt access drives to Phase 11
2. Phase II
a. Construction of the 902,079 square foot building addition to Phase I
b. Construction of trailer parking in the vicinity of Phase II
3. Phase III
a. Construction of the 509,871 square foot addition to Phase III
b. Construction of trailer parking in the vicinity of Phase III
4. Phase IV
a. Construction of the 272,076 square feet building addition to the east of the
existing warehouse/manufacturing facility
5. Phase V
a. Installation of approximately one linear mile of railroad tracks
b. Construction of Intermodal Yard /railcar storage area
The sequence of construction phases has been designed to have less areas of exposed /bare
soil than if land disturbance activities for multiple phases and /or all five phase were
simultaneously performed. During construction of each of the phases of the project, erosion
control measures will be employed to minimize the amount of sediment runoff into nearby
streams. Silt fencing and additional erosion control measures /devices will be used to prevent
erosion and capture sediment. Disturbed areas will be immediately reseeded to prevent
erosion and sedimentation runoff into streams. Stockpiling excavated soil will be avoided where
possible. If temporary stock piling is necessary, it will be bermed with bales of hay and or
covered to prevent excessive run -off. Erosion control inspections will be scheduled with the
Land Quality Section as necessary. A stormwater management plan will be submitted to the
N.C. Division of Water Quality separate from this application.
The stream and wetland impacts being proposed within this permit application are part of
Ashley's long term occupancy of the site. Due to the size and complexity of the proposed
project and complicated construction sequence which could take up to 20 years to complete, it
may not be viable that impacts requested in this permit will be performed within the five year
time span. Therefore, it may be necessary to apply for an extension in the future.
18

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Ashley has completed an extensive alternatives analysis in the attempt to determine the most
plausible preferred alternative with a minimal impact to the environment. The alternatives
analysis is included as an attachment in Appendix VI. The alternatives analysis identifies their
needs, how alternatives to the proposed action affect those needs, any major direct
environmental consequences and discussion of the practicality, from an efficiency of operations
stand - point, for each alternative.
Ashley began its search for a potential site in early 2006. Seven potential sites in North
Carolina were considered. The sites were analyzed for a number of criteria including but not
limited to, impacts to the environment, cost of development, existing facility conditions,
availability to rail service, available infrastructure and fulfillment of Ashley's needs. For other
projects, ECS has previously performed wetland determinations /delineations at many of the
seven potential sites, including the facilities located at 3200 Temple School Road in Kernersville
(Dell) and 6550 Judge Adams Road in Whitsett. The alternative locations have facilities that
are positioned in a manner such that the proposed project would result in far greater amount of
stream/wetland impacts, and thus, a greater negative impact to the environment than the
preferred alternative. The Advance, North Carolina site was selected due to a number of
reasons including: the ability to purchase the entire site from one owner; the size of the site
provided enough area for expansion; and, existing structureslinfrastructure including a truck
maintenance facility, thirty-two free span storage units that could used for lumber drying, raw
material storage and overflow storage of finished goods, an existing building that could be used
in the short term to re -coup operating losses as the facility is expanded, and railroad access.
Following the selection of the Advance, North Carolina location, Ashley conducted an
exhaustive analysis of potential alternatives to meet its production, storage, distribution and
management needs. The on -site akematives that were analyzed include the following:
1. Maintain existing facility in current condition (No-Build)
2. Addition of second story to existing facility
3. Movement of some operations to alternative location off -Site
4. Demolish the existing facility and rebuild on an upland site on the property
5. Addition to the area south of the existing facility
o Expansion directly to the south of the existing facility
o Expansion east -west rectangle parallel to existing facility
6. Addition to the area north of the existing facility
• Expansion east -west rectangle to existing facility
• Expansion directly to the north of the existing facility
7. Addition to the east of the existing facility
o L- shaped expansion to the southeast of the existing facility
19

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
o T- shaped expansion directly to the east of the existing facility
8. Addition to the west of the existing facility
o L- shaped expansion to the west and north
o Linear expansion directly to the west (preferred alternative)
Following Ashley's extensive alternatives analysis, the preferred alternative was selected due to
limited impacts on the environment and the costs of development, production and operation.
The preferred alternative, when compared to other possible alternatives has a total cost
differential that ranges from 48.9 to 138.2 million dollars.
5.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will require impacts to perennial and intermittent streams
and wetlands. The unavoidable stream impacts are included in Table 4 and depicted on Figure
5.
o. Table 4: Proposed Stream Impacts o 0
Stream
Classification
Type o #Impact~Hing
Linear Feet
8
Perennial
222
• 14
Intermittent
94
Total Mitigable Impacts:
316
Tabte 5: Proposed Weland impacts
Weiland
Classification
Type of Impact
Filling in Acres
NCWAM
Rating
H
Headwater Forest
0.437
High
J
Headwater Forest
2.595
High
N
Non -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
0.232
Low
O
Basin Wetland
0.531
Low
P
Headwater Forest
0.294
Low
Total Mitigable Impacts
4.089
20

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and D►shibution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
During design of the proposed project, Ashley has incorporated the following design techniques
to avoid and minimize the impacts to streams, wetlands and the environment:
• Slopes will be constructed at 2.5:1 rather than a typical 3:1
• Construction of a retaining wall to eliminate impacts at an existing 78 inch culvert
that discharges into a jurisdictional stream (See Appendix II, Blow -Up #1)
An existing 66 inch culvert will be extended to the toe of the new fill slope and
conveyed to the existing stream via a permanent rip -rap lined channel. This
reduces the amount of impacts compared to the culvert discharging directly to the
stream and a standard rip-rap dissipater being utilized at the culvert outlet (See
Appendix II, Blow -Up #2)
The sequence of construction phases has been designed to have less areas of exposed /bare
soil than if land disturbance activities for multiple phases and /or all five phase were
simultaneously performed. During construction of each of the phases of the project, erosion
control measures will be implemented to avoid sediment runoff into nearby streams. Silt
fencing and additional erosion control measures /devices will be used to prevent erosion and
capture sediment. Disturbed areas will be immediately reseeded to prevent erosion and
sedimentation runoff into streams. Stockpiling excavated soil will be avoided where possible. If
temporary stock piling is necessary, it will be bermed with bales of hay and or covered to
prevent excessive run -off.
There are approximately 12,460 linear feet of stream channel and approximately 9.461 acres of
wetlands located on the site. The design has taken into account expected growth models,
increases in the volume of transportation of goods /services in the geographic area capable of
being serviced by the proposed facility and to be capable to incorporate
advances /improvements in technology into the facilities operations. The project, as being
proposed, will meet the current and future needs for this facility. The site design, as being
proposed, allows for future development to occur in upland areas with little to no impact on
streams, wetlands and/or the environment. Additional impacts to streams or wetlands beyond
those that are proposed in this project are not anticipated.
7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION
Ashley has shown an attempt to avoid and minimize where possible and will compensate to the
extent practicable, for remaining unavoidable losses with mitigation. The proposed project will
impact 316 linear feet of mitigable intermittent and perennial stream channel. The intermittent
stream channel is relatively straight and has been altered by excessive rip -rap stone. The
intermittent stream channel, that will be impacted, has not contained flowing /stagnant water
and /or aquatic life during our site visits. The perennial stream channel that will be impacted
contains few meanders and appears to have been straightened in the past. The upper reach of
the stream has not contained flowing /stagnant water and/or evidence of aquatic life during our
FA

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
site visits. The lower reach of the stream, in the area of impact, has contained standing water in
deeper pools. Evidence of amphibians was observed in the deeper pools. Other aquatic life
was not _observed in this stream in the area of impact. ;Mr. John Thomas of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has recommended a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for the stream impacts.
The proposed project will unavoidably impact 4.089 acres of wetlands. Of the 4.089 acres of
wetlands, the NCWAM rated 1.057 acres of wetlands as low quality. The remaining 3.032
acres were rated as high quality. Mr. John Thomas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
recommended a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for the high quality wetland impacts and a 1:1 ratio for
low quality wetland impacts.
The proposed mitigation is included in Table 6.
Table 6: Proposed M
Lion and Required Credits
omrYrpa` O6'
Fill
Linear FeetlAcreage�
°PrroposeMrti
g°aion `
Ratio
Required Credits
Streams
316 ft
2:1
632 ft
Wetlands-High
3.032 ac
2:1
6.064 ac
Wetlands -Low
1.057 ac
1:1
1.057 ac
Total:
Stream
Wetlands
1 632 ft
1 7.121 ac
Ashley proposes to compensate for fill impacts for the construction of the proposed project by
offering payment into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and/or private mitigation
banks. Private mitigation banks, in the watershed of the proposed project, do not have credits
available at this time. According to a September 18, 2012 letter issued by the EEP, the
required mitigation credits are available. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix XII. At the
ratios proposed, Ashley will receive 632 linear feet of stream credits and 7.25 acres of wetlands
credits, which will meet and /or exceed mitigation payment requirements.
22

Proposed Ashley Fumiture Mid - Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
8.0 CORRESPONDENCE/REFERENCES
USGS Topographic Map, Advance North Carolina Quadrangle dated 1969 revised 1987
North Carolina Geological Survey Geologic Map of North Carolina dated 1985.
Davie County Hydric Soils List, provided by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
!iLtp://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of
Davie County, http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /app /HomePaae.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps
http://www.fws.-govtwetlands/Data/Mapper.html
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Listings in the National Register of Historic
Places http:/ /www.hpo.ncdcr.gov /NR- PDFs.htmi
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Web GIS Service
http : / /ais. ncdcr.gov /hDoweb/
North Carolina National Heritage Program, List of Threatened and Endangered Species,
http./twww.ncnhp.org/Paaes/herftaqedata.htmi
23

Proposed Ashley Furniture Mid Atlantic Manufactunng and Distribution Center
916 Baltimore Road
Advance, Davie County, North Carolina
ECS Project 09- 21106A
November 19, 2012
9.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Figure 1 — Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Ashley Mid- Atlantic Manufacturing and Distribution Center — Site Plan with
Stream/Wetland /Pond Overlay
Figure 3 — Soil Survey Map
Figure 4 — National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 5 — Stream/Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 6 — Stream ID Map
Figure 7 — Wetland ID Map
Figure 8 — SHPO Web GIS Service Map
Appendix II — Stream/Wetland Impact Exhibits
Appendix III — Stream Evaluation Forms
Appendix IV — Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix V — NCWAM Rating Forms
Appendix VI — Alternative Analysis
Appendix VII — EEP Letter dated September 18, 2012
24

r
" SOURCE: FIGURE 1
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SITE LOCATION MAP
ADVANCE, NC QUADRANGLE
DATED 1969 AND REVISED 1987 ASHLEY FURNITURE MID - ATLANTIC
MANUFACTURING AND
SCALE. 1 "= 2,000' DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CAROLINAS 916 BALTIMORE ROAD
ECS PROJECT. 09- 21106A ADVANCE, NORTH CAROLINA

�\ s
R i1
sntm—"�'i)
�p
Ism•
Em-
WMAND
4.
s`Ew �
1� _ lYP.
II
PROPS `'
tw
T=%.
=o.
w110
PuRc "
"I om[
•. 3`
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN PREPARED BY STIMMEL
ASSOCIATES, PA ASHLEY FURNITURE MID - ATLANTIC
MANUFACTURING AND
SCALE: 1" =700' DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CAROLINAS 916 BALTIMORE ROAD
ECS PROJECT 09- 21106A I I ADVANCE. NORTH CAROLINA

a
2
ji ffm
WC�
USDA SOIL SURVEY OF
LE Y FURNITURE W D' TLAN i s MANUFACTURING AND
FROM NCSS WEBSITE UPI' _ DISTRIBUTION CE _ -
r.AR UNAS 916 BALTIMORE ROAD
ECS PROJECT 09-21106A D
NORTH CAROLINA

B LU t
S I RD
FIGURE 6
STREAM ID
LOCATION MAP
`*
" - --
ASHLEY FURNITURE
MID- ATLANTIC
MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
916 BALTIMORE ROAD
ADVANCE,
•
NORTH CAROLINA
1:
CAROLINAS
. _
-,•
.:
..
SOURCE:
••'••
•
�``.
DAVIE COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE
2010 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH
ECS PROJECT 09- 21106A
LEGEND
f
Site Boundary
Approximate
Location of
Perennial Stream
L
Approximate
Location of
'!
Intermittent
.5
Stream
Approximate
'.
;•. "�'» ..:
Location of
Wetlands
I � -
am► Approximate
_
s
Location of Pond
t) 1O Stream
1 Identification
�4a- +' ""
...
_......:.. '-0.:
SCAB

I
w
tc
Lu C B i RD IL
J
i
0
r_r
r•�
FIGURE 7
WETLANDID
LOCATION MAP
ASHLEY FURNITURE
MID - ATLANTIC
MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
916 BALTIMORE ROAD
ADVANCE,
NORTH CAROLINA
CAROLINAS
, SOURCE:
. t
DAVIE COUNTY
GIS WEBSITE
2010 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH
ECS PROJECT 09- 21106A
LEGEND
Site Boundary
'}
�1
Approximate
Location of
Perennial Stream
Approximate
Location of
Intermittent
Stream
Approximate
Location of
Wetlands
- Approximate
Location of Pond
Wetland
A Identification
SCALE
r
i
SSO
0
FM

APPENDIX II
STREAMMETLAND IMPACT EXHIBITS

tl
ao
Locotion Mop
Not to scale
EXIST.
STREAM ��!!
TYP.
EXIST
WETLAND
TYP
EXIST. Q •
STREAM T
EXIST.
WETLAND
TYP.
PROPOSED,
TRAILER LOT.
WEr
> DETENTION
�A O B
\ EXIST.
} WETLAND
/ TYP.
vo
EXIST.
WETLAND
TYP.
ST
TEAM
r,
PROPERTY
LINE
EXIST. BUILDINGS
AND PAVED
ORIVES TYR
7 I
TOTALIMPACTS
STREAMS o 918 LF
WETLANDS = 4.088 ACRES
PROPOSED Q
TRAILER LOT.
TON w
wax e/•
Mid- Atlantic
Manufacturing &
Distribution Center
Advance. NC 10/31/12
PROPOSED Stream & Wetlands Impacts
TRAILER LOT.
Overall Key
Prepared for.
Asher Fun*wo
Ono Ashhe Way
Mode, WI 54612
icoe}u>,azse
Project it; 12-160
Prepared by'
Stimrrrtsel no
Landsopo ArchROCWM nrat.mrs
IRMMPI 1W Cdvd Eno ram M tar
sv a d Anscw%., M Land Planoft s am.xatmn
SCALE: 1* = 700'
700 0 700
North

94 L.F OF
0.014 AC OF
\ 1I \ 1
I
J t
Lr44`
---)46
531 AC OF DISTURBED WETLANDS /
\ \ \ PROPOSED=!
GRADE
Y 778 _\ \
L! I
1
� i I
1 1
• IO� (fit
LEGEND
— STREAM
WL WETLAND
BOUNDARY
770 Mid- Atlantic
n (�
780 Manufacturing &
� 1 i �
1 111 I \ Distribution Center
750 ' 1 1 1 Adranm, Nc 10/31/12
Stream & Wetlands Impacts
740 % 1 11 11 1 'L Blow -up 1
1 I I t i 1\ k Preppred f=
TURBEO STREAM PROPOSED RETAINING
WWETLAND /STREAM ` 1 Ate" Stet2
�3 'e
IMPACTS
OSTUR8E0 WETLANDS I / �+ f PWjWO; 12 -160
EXIST. y
STREAM // / / 4F /• / / EXIST. Prepared by:
NO
EXISL
STREAM
stimmeo
EXIST. Q / . / / \ Lu4satpo Arcairoctum Z.101 "M
t I \ \ \ \ \ C E,11ho ft Mr Iml
r I I WETLAND ` . I ' \ \ \ \ ` \ \\ \ \ Ne \ \ BemAW A.tedgn pA LAntl PlAnr iAp i StGttaloce
SCALE: 1" = 50'
50 0 50
North

�T.
_w
ri
X.
><
EXISTING 66" RCP STORM
PIPE TO BE EXTENDED
TO EXISTING STREAM,
SEE BLOW -UP rl
\ \ \
294 ACRES / \ \ \
F DISTURBED \
ETLANOS
\ \I
WWETtAND \
A\
^p1 \
1
LEGEND
— STREAM
-- - WETLAND
BOUNDARY
--' Mid- Atlantic
Manufacturing &
__1 Distribution Center
A&aroa, NC 10/31!12
Stream & Wetlands impacts
'�— Blow -Up 2
----�� _ Pmpamd for.
_ Rnft"
Om Ask" War
"1', J — tsna>a2ae2se
Pfcod 6; 12-160
Pmpamd by,
°-° — Stimmel
Landman Aichftaa o t sMe". e�c
`�-
CM EnVftwft a =m W"
xr w r eft—W A_.Wftw PA L.W Piwvft v M17% Im.
-� SCALE: 1* = 50'
50 0 50
r �
North
^p1 \
1
LEGEND
— STREAM
-- - WETLAND
BOUNDARY
--' Mid- Atlantic
Manufacturing &
__1 Distribution Center
A&aroa, NC 10/31!12
Stream & Wetlands impacts
'�— Blow -Up 2
----�� _ Pmpamd for.
_ Rnft"
Om Ask" War
"1', J — tsna>a2ae2se
Pfcod 6; 12-160
Pmpamd by,
°-° — Stimmel
Landman Aichftaa o t sMe". e�c
`�-
CM EnVftwft a =m W"
xr w r eft—W A_.Wftw PA L.W Piwvft v M17% Im.
-� SCALE: 1* = 50'
50 0 50
r �
North

7_�
pep
STREAM
�r��
•` ax J� •
t `Iikill��
LEGEND
— — STREAM
WL WETLAND
BOUNDARY
Mid - Atlantic
Manufacturing &
Distribution Center
Advame. NC 1M1112
Stream & Wetlands Impacts
Blown -Up 3
Proparod Mr:
AWW F1xr4ma
Ora Avbv vft
Aneft, tan 54412
rooaruaazsa
"aatik 12.180
Premed Oy:
Stlmmel
m,>�
Left 4"Arcmachao ; e'A
OW ftlneartra �� MM 1001
"MmA o"Ga t s." Latta ftnMng r, U4 an Zj
North
SCALE: i" = 30'
30 0 310 010�

G►

fl

APPENDIX III
STREAM EVALUATION FORMS

NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC IDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 8/15/12 '
Project/site: 09- 21106A
latitude:
Evaluator: Lucke X, ECS Carolinas
County: Davie
longitude:
Total Points:
1
1
2
2
O
Stream is at least Intermittent Stream ID 8: 30
Stream Determination (ci
Other Advance
f Z 19 or rennial If z 30•
Ephemeral Irtermitten erennial
e. g. quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = t-1)•-*) )
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool se uence
0
0
1
1
2
2
O
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
... ...,.-. ,.....,- 1 ::.,. -do see u:wu lons m manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8 t
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
Q
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0 0.5
No = 0
1
Yes
1.5
U3
v. uwIU_yy IODULUldl - o.J 1 -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 J
01
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 0
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: Standing water in deeper pools of lower reach of evaluation area. Amphibians observed in some
of the deeper pools that have standing water. Other aquatic life was not observed.
41

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
o STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ,, // /
1. Applicant's name: AssA / 2. Evaluator's name :� 1�S 14-y h-% �S
3. Date of evaluation: &0 I is ( I z 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: SyA.— I 6. River basin:' y4d k" n - Rai
Dw-
7. Approximate drainage area: 40 &c,e5 8. Stream order: f'f
9. Length of reach evaluated: 500 10. County: /
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
GG
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 3s • 06257 A° Longitude (ex. —77 556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo S e Ortho (Aerial hoto /GI Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landm'�attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): (O +n of gf "r Lr *.-+ 6a ;S AA!2� Ad (+ frw AW-L jpt-t
15. Recent weather conditions: Drtl
16. Site conditions at time of visit: T-IrCt.1
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 —([-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? & NO. 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES(:
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial 66 % Industrial _% Agricultural
Z% Forested _% Cleared / Logged Z% Other ( mg iifiw rof A1& )
22. Bankfull width: Z 'tl'F'f 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z`5*
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
(from reverse): 5V
Evaluator's Signature /� 8(1:5-11L Date
This channel evaluation form is i;tendedC<o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment. please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET |
'
`
' imce of amphibians
'
por
|
| !
-------'------r-
Par-
P
O-�
�-�
�-�
�
�
3
=
2
I
�
�
�

Notes on Characteristics Identified in Assessment Worksheet
1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross - sectional area (expected flour), drainage area, recent precipitation, potential
drought conditions, sur{ounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstream, vegetation growth in
channel bottom (as indi6tor of intermittent flow), etc.
2. Human - caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles
adjacent to channel, etc.
3. The riparian zone is thei area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the
floodplain. Evaluation rshould consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation density, maturity-of
canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads. etc.),
presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone.
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites,
agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors,
discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge.
5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of
adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom.
6. Presence of floodplains may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of
development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc.
7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data,
testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding.
8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and
may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National
Wetland Inventory maps, etc. (Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.)
9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc.
10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and
in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In
rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring.
11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average
size of substrate (bedrock, clay /silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size (riprap is excluded).
12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v- shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent
development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed.
13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on
banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc.
14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank
relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation.
15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization,
evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high
nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc.
16. Riffle -pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles
and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate).
Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple -pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed
streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate
and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams.
17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in- stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look
for include rocks/cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc.
18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full
sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case.
19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the
streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps).
20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect
abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page
4).
21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while
salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value.
22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed.
23. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells, droppings. burrows or dens. hunting stands. evidence
of fishing. etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles,
insects, etc

Common Stream Invertebrates _
Sensitive Taxa — Pollution sensitive organisms that may he found in good nuality water_
Caddisfly Mayfly Stonefly
Dnhsnnflv
Riffle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail
Somewhat Tolerant Taxa — Somewhat nollution tolerant organisms that may he found in vond or
beetle Larva
Clam
Craytish Damselfly Nymph
Tol
erant t axa — tYonution tolerant
I
Sowbug
pa
Cranefly
cfi.. , "=
Scud
Dragon Fly Nymph
alitv water.
Blackfly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva
}
Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail
4
(;'X'
.. .... .......
Caddisfly Mayfly Stonefly
Dnhsnnflv
Riffle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail
Somewhat Tolerant Taxa — Somewhat nollution tolerant organisms that may he found in vond or
beetle Larva
Clam
Craytish Damselfly Nymph
Tol
erant t axa — tYonution tolerant
I
Sowbug
pa
Cranefly
cfi.. , "=
Scud
Dragon Fly Nymph
alitv water.
Blackfly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva
}
Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail
4

NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
- Perennial Strearns and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC IDWQ Stream identification )Form Version 4.11
Date: 8/15/12
Project/Site: 09- 21106A
Latitude:
Evaluator: Luckey, ECS Carolinas
county: Davie
Longitude:
Total Points:
1
2
Stream is at least intermittent Stream ID 14: 19.5
Stream Determ n circle one)
Other 'Advance
if a 19 or rennlal !f a 30`
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
9•
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = I t )
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
rip le-pool sequence
0
Q
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
T Headcuts
0
S::�_
col
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
agusual undles ate nut rdied; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 5.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
OlJ
1
2
3
13. Iron okidizing bacteria
no
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 f
QD
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
U3
v. DIVIVC.(V (JUDToiai =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 )
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
S::�_
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 .5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed I
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: The feature is heavily lined with rip -rap stone.
41

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
MOM_
;,o,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: AsAty
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: I q
7. Approximate drainage area: SD avrs
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?OD 4+
2. Evaluator's name: Ldc" { £LS 1412 /, -1 .,s'
4. Time of evaluation: / /'00
6. River basin: yaa4(L,a - Per I)ce
8. Stream order: /St.
10. County: N ✓r e.
11. Site coordinates (if knoown):, prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
G
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 3 S• %Sf 60 Z Longitude (ex. —77 556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS o o Shy Ortho (Aerial hoto /G 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 any): 41f S6M— Vus 60--, JWtA 6IAJ LHn1
15. Recent weather conditions: AU
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_i cl-
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 & If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ff E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? d! NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: y% Residential _% Commercial 70 % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested % Cleared / Logged A % Other ( 1*w4;bd 446&
22. Bankfull width: 31<f - 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): .?' � 06�--
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) Steep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: K 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.
T
Evaluator's Signature . -�r�- E //Z Date
This channel evaluation form is intenSe6 to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r i nese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGiON PONT RANGE
SCORE
SC
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
4
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0 -5 0-4
0 - 5
0
n - MM potnts)
Evidence of past human alteration a
`v
;
0 ti 0-5 5
0 - 5
e on = Ono teration =max intS
Riparian zone
0-6 0-4
0-5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5 0-4
0 - 4
Z
iv es = 0 es = max
a
�'
Groundwater discharge
0- 3 0- 4
0 4
Z
U
n di e = 0° s ri wetlands etc. =max rots
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4 0 - 4
0 - 2
no figg4gain = 0- extensive floodplain = may ins
1
Entrenchment / floodplain access
;
0 -5 0 -4
0
(dpgpl e ched -0ifre fl - o
-2
Presence of adjacent wetlands
-4-
g
Channel sinuosity
' = a• may
0-5 0 -4
= 0-3
Z
extensive el' n er =
3 a Sediment input _ - , a - a a
"on=
0-5, ! '0-4
0-4
(Cgmi little or no ime = mx
_ -
-
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA* 0-4
0-5
3
homo ous = 0. kmdiverse sues = max
Evidence of ehatmel incision or widening
0-5 0 -4
0 - 5
Z
>1
(dwly in is = 0 std & banks =
'
Presence of major bank failures
0-5 0-5
0 - 5
Z
severe ea•osi = 0 • no stable banks = max iras
Root depth and: density on banks
no visible w = 0- dense moots out =am tdIIts
®� 3 ! 0-4
0 - 5
i
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5 0-4
0 - 5
subs =0 no ev'tdenm = max Jmt _
s
Q
D
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
z
0 - 3 0-5
0 - 6
no riff] ies or ols = • well- develo = max
Habitat complexity
ha =
0-6 i 0-6
0- ti
e or no 0 : ftWenL varied habitats = nix pohi
Canopy coverage over streambed
=
0-5 i 0-5
0 - 5
no Agoiqg ye on nfinuous can = max ints
Substrate embeddedness
h A* 0-4
0-4
dee embedded = 0. • loose struct__ t re = max
Z
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
°
0-4 i 0-5 0 - 5
6
n e- m n = m in
�
Presence of amphibians
0 -4 0 -4
0 -4
no evidence = 0• common numerous Wits = max of
x
22,
Presence of fish
i
0-4 0 - 4 0-4
IIo evidence �' COmInO i. niltnerO�IS e3 = O`
Evidence ofvn"ldlife use
0-6 ` f
! 0 5 0-5
Z
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max rots
t
Total Points Pogsiblc I IQfI 100 i 100 `
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on i7rst pW)
r i nese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Notes on Characteristics Identified in Assessment Worksheet
1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross - sectional area (expected flow), drainage area, recent prgcipitation, potential
drought conditions, surrounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstreart, vegetation growth in
channel bottom (as indicator of intermittent flow), etc.
2. Human - caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles
adjacent to channel, etc.
3. The riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the
floodplain. Evaluation should consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation ilensity, maturity of
canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads, etc.),
presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone.
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites,
agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors,
discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge.
5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of
adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom.
6. Presence of floodplain may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of
development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc.
7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data,
testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding.
8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and
may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National
Wetland Inventory maps, etc. ( Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.)
9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc.
10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and
in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In
rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring.
11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average
size of substrate (bedrock, clay /silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size ( riprap is excluded).
12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v- shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent
development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed.
13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on
banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc.
14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank
relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation.
15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization,
evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high
nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc.
16. Riffle -pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles
and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate).
Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple -pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed
streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate
and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams.
17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in- stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look
for include rocks /cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc.
18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full
sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case.
19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the
streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps).
20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect
abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page
4).
21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while
salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value.
22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed.
23. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells. droppings, burrows or dens. hunting stands. evidence
of fishing. etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles,
insects, etc.

Common Stream Invertebrates
Sensitive Taxa — Pollution sensitive organisms that may he found in good duality water
vxsnv
r 6`,
r
Caddisfly Mayfly Stonefly
S..
Dobsonflv
Riffle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail
Somewhat Tolerant Taxa — Somewhat nollution tolerant orPanigms that may he found in Pond or
Beetle Larva
Clam
Sowbug
Cranefly
illl �' cr!• '' ��w"
Crayfish Damselfly Nymph
Toi
erant 1 axa —Pollution tolerant
I
Scud
Dragon Fly Nymph
alitv water.
Blackfly Larva Leech i Midge Fly Larva
Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail
4

APPENDIX IV
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Preject/Site: Apprmdm de 688.12 Acre TradWimore Road City/County: AdvanoelDavie Sampling fate: 4/ f W12
ApplicantOwner David fddunorul, McGill Associates State: NC Sarroft Point: DP-1
investigator(s): Brad 141*oy, ECS Section, Township, Range:
Landform (h tslope„ term. e1c.): Bottomland Hardwoods Local relief (ooncave, convex, none): Slope(%): 4
SuIreom (LM or MLRAr Let Long:
Sop Map LW Moclmiriits sandy foam NWI cisaairwation:
Are d6natUc / thydrh c cones an the site typical for this time of year! Yes R No [ (if no, exam in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Q , Sop 0 , or Hydrotogy signaica,* distufte Are 'Nofmal Chomtstanoes' present? Yes ❑ No
Are Vege>abori Q, Sop ❑ , or Hydrology _� rratm* problematic? (If needed, eq(n any answers In Rernaft.)
SUMMARY OF FINDWGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, stm
HYDROLOGY
Water - Blamed Leaves (89)
.Aquatic Fauna (813)
True Aquatic Plants (014)
Hydrogen SuT do odor (C t)
OxMiwd Rhhro,phmes on UvbV RWIS (0)
Presenco of Reduced Iron (04)
RWent Iron Reduction In Titled Sops (CS)
Thin MUM Swfaco (C7)
Other (ExplWn In Remarks)
Surface Water Root? Yes _Q No
Water TWO Resent? Yes No
Sahuefim Present? Yes No
are
Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches): 8
Depth Qrtdhes): 8 Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ,_ No _n
US Army Corps of Erginsers Eastern Mountains and Piedmord -- irrieri n Vern

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree stradnti (PIM size: _ 301eet
-
1. Quercus alba
40
2. Fra)dnus pern aylanba
20
3.
4.
5.
8;
7.
8.
SD = TOW haver
8aulba tmm Stratum (Plot sim _ teet
1. Fm)dnus pennsylanim
30
2. JwVertla yirglnlena
10
3.
4.
b.
8.
7.
40 = TOW (aver
Herb StraUrm (Pia ANK 3a feet
1. La71&cea japonica itT
2.
3.
4.
S.
8.
7.
e.
9.
10.
11.
12.
lft sY
mamarcs: pro=w pnm merom teue or on
The dominard vagetation is hy&o0,ytic,
e�
Sampling Poim: - RP.1
!2 J 1!_llf!'u ? 1�'il.l�„11LrJ11
:LS!C:111 •., =1­75771-11-177%
rAr
D 1- Rapid rest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 • Dominanoe Test is >6M
3 • Prevalertce Index Is aO'
4 • AdapladOrts' (Provlde supporttng
data in Remades or an a separate sheet)
FAC ftMMnft Hgdrapttytte Vegetation' (fin)
'Inickatars of hyft soft and wattand hydrology must be
present, wiless disturbed or problematic.
DdMlons of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody ptar>ffi, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.8 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
hev".
Sappttg Mrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, leas
than 3 In. DBH and greater than 328 ft (1m) tall.
Herb -Ali herbamus (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants, less than 3.28 ft tap.
Woody vine - Ail woody vines greater than 3.28 ft In
Hydraphytic
Vegetation ��
Present? Yea _0 No
U3 Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Intodm Version

SVIL Y I Sampling Point: P -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the'lydlcator or co nflrrrr the of bdicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Featyres
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (mist) % Type' to Terdwe Aemaft
0-6 t0YR412 100 SL,
5-12 10 YR 3H 100 1,
'Type: G-Carcantratiar, D- Depletion, M+-� Matrib , W. Ma&A Said Grains. local= PL Pore Lhdrtg, WAsbix
Hydrlc Sall indicators:
tr�stora fior Pmbt�c Hydrlc Solis'
II 1 (At)
t-I
a Stopped Matrix (SM
a 2 an Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Hislic Wpedim (M)
❑tt Dark Swface (8�
❑ � Pie Redact (A1O) OLRA 147,
❑ SIM* H6sw (A3)
r
0 Pafyrrattre Setae SuAace (SM (MLRA
Q Piednort Rw*aln Solts (FtO) (MLRA
❑ Hydrogen Srdiide (A4)
147,1411))
❑ Wit Dark Surface (Sit) (MLAA 147,146)
180,147)
_i.1 Red Pww 19;1 (TF2)
II Stratified Layers (M)
Loamy d (P-1
_0 Very Da* She (1712)
❑ 2 an Muck (AID) WM N))
Ipa
0 D� Ma k (R)
-Dter poem in f haft)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) ❑ Redox [lark Surface (787
❑ Thiolt DaAc Surtaoe (Al2)
❑ Depleted park Swface (F7)
❑ Sanity fvlrrdry Mineral (81) n RR N, a f (�
'trams of and
FAL RA 147,14
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
a wme Masses (712) (LM K
cry. wry
dbubedorl Alp 0-
❑ Sanity Redox (85)
MLRA 136)
❑ uric Swim (F13) (11LRA M 122)
❑ Piedmont Sods (Ftil) (MA 148)
Resbtctive Layer Of observed):
Type:
Depth (): Hydrlo 6011 Present? El Yet ❑, No
are
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — intedm Vernon

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA-fORM - Eastern Mountains andfledmont'Reglon
Projea'M: - Approximate 888.12 Acre TrecVBabnore Road Cityrounty. mmweigavie SOlnplMg Date: 4/1012
ApppcarWOwner. David Ridunond, MCGM Associates State: 'NC Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(er Brad Ludrey, ECS Section, Township. Range:
Uu'&Omi MftWM terrace. etc.). Bottomiand Harelwoods Local relief (concave, =wax, noneY Slope (9'0): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lai'
Long:
Sal Map LIrtt Name: Resalo tine sandy loam NwI classifications
Are dlmatic / hydrologic cations on the site typicaf for Uds timed year? Yes _R No [I (If no. e)#ain in Remarks.)
Datum:
Are Vegatatfon El , SOD or Hydrolo9Y_ja significantly dsturbed? Are Normal Chmnstancee present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil or Hydrdogy [] naturally probismaha? (if needed, erglaM any answers M Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FlNDINGS - Attach site nap showing sampling point locations, tilansects. Important featura& etc.
Hohv.y w Vegelaf on Present? Yes -nn No
Hydric Sol Present? Welland Yes
—0 No --0 within a Wetlene Yes _ n No
Hydrology Present? Yes El No --1
Remarks: The three sampling aftetla are net present sampling point is net ocated within a amend.
HTYMA7Wt y
Wetfartd Hydrology Udieatom
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
satustion (A3)
Water Marks (Bt)
Sedament Deposits (B2)
Drtit (83)
All Mat or Crust (84)
Iron Deposits (80
trlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Surlaoe Water Present? Yes n No
Water Table Present? Yes rl No
Saturation Present? Yes n No
Mile.
are
Water - Stabled Leaves (Bg)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
True Aquatic Plants (Bia)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
0Wzed Rhimspheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence d ReduoeQiron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction M Tilled Soils (CB)
Thin Mick Suit= (C7)
Otter (Explain M Remarks)
2r h lmmimum d t� "rt?autredi
II Surface Soil Cracks (B8)
Q Sparsely Vegetated Comm surface (fm
0 Dralmage Poem (B10)
❑ Moss Trbn Lines (618)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Q Sabmdlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (09)
a Stinted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Q Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Mtwd (133)
0 Rdd (134))
Depth (Inches):
Depth (Metres):
Depth pndtes): Wetland Hydrology Presort? Yea _n No .�
US Army Cops of Engineers
Eastern Mourgains and Piedrrwnt – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Strohm► (Plat Sims: 30 feet 1
1. UQuidgmbaratyracaho
2. Ulmus americana
3. JUWPerus WT&k to
4. Carta ovalls
5.
6.
7.
s.
(Piolsim
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
Herb 8.
1. � aote � 1
2.
3.
4.
'S
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
t9►ao U V11" OU Stme: 30 feF1 t
1.
2.
a.
4.
5,
nemanrs: tmalm pnwo tunDers nets or on a
The domirrard vegeWfim is no3 hyft0i dke.
% cover
25
15
10
6ti 3 Tow Goner
10
10 -
Sampling Point' DP.2
11 a LMI • + : hz A
:a.r,tl gun i � r1 7' • _ . �
lu :.ia •!i �. aK� •: J : a31
TOW % Cover ol:
xL=
-K2=
E
-F
2
gin 1
x3= 3
a# 3
x4a 12
X5=
5
(A) 17 (�
1 - tlapld Test for Hydro"ic Vegetation
2 - Domtrrartoe Test Is,-50%
D 3 - Prevatow bxW Is s3.0'
4- MoroWfogloal Aftlaftlar ( Ong
data In Remarks or on a separate street)
FACU D Prablel wit Hyttralfttic Vegeffiion' (Explain)
'ktdlcators at hydrfe soli and welland hydrology must be
Plow , ides d shrrbed or problematic.
Deflnitim of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vkres, 3 In. (7.8 om) or
more to diameter at breast height (DOH), regardless of
height.
8aptbt Shrub - Woody plants. awkiftV vkres, less
than 3 in. DSH and greater than 3.28 K (1m) tall.
Haab - AU heftoeous (nmvaoody) tom. regardless
of alma, and woody plants, less than 320 ft tall.
Woody vine - AD woody vtrres greater than 326 ft to
"Ydrophyft
Presew Yes �.0 Na
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Morxrteins and Pkadmord - Interim Version

CAI I'
- - I -,arnpung voirtr u
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to dommord the hWiMor or confirm the ef>seruee of btdiestom)
Depth' Matrix RedoA Features
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color4molst) 96 Type' Lee Ted= Remarks
0.6 10YR 418 100 SL
6-12 10 YR 413 70 L
3.12 tiYR 518 3p L
'Type: C=Cowentratbn, D--Depleft, mdit Acs. Masked Mend Greins. Corr PL -Acre Loft M=MabtL
Hydric Soli Indlcalm:
blI0rs for Proweraft Hydrfc Setts?
Histosol (Ai)
❑ Stripped Matt (S)
❑ 2 an Muck (A1Q) MM 141)
❑ Hbft Eopedon (A2)
0 Dark Swiface (S7)
❑ "M Pis RWox (AIM PUAA 141,
❑ Black Mstlo (A3)
❑ e Below Surface (S3) ONLRA
❑ PbftW Pmolafn Soils (Fig) (NLRA
a Hydrogen Stdrlde (AQ
147,148))
❑ Thkt Dark Sutfaoa (139) (ULRA 147,140)
9% 14n
Red Patera 0 (TP4
❑ Strati LMos (A5)
❑ LMy Gleyed Mdit (F2)
-0 vay amiliow Dm% matte (rFi2)
0 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR rq)
❑ Depleted Maft Q:3)
-OCVw taro In tom)
0 Depleted Below Dark SuAace (Al 1) ❑ Redox Dark &oWe (F8)
Q Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Depleted Dark Swtace (F7)
0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) (LRR 11, 0 Red=
%ftabms of WDOW vagifthon and
MLRA 147,148)
ran , hydrology rm st be presen>L uadess
Sandy dleyed Agbeix (84)
❑ classes �1 aRR
dtswrbed erpmb
0 Sandy Redox (SS)
AnAA 130
❑ Lknbric surface (Fla) (raLRA 136,122)
❑ PiedrnoM Rood kM Soils (Fig) (UMA 144
Restrlethre Layer of observed):
Type:
Depth pnches): Hytirk soil Pre8wV Q Yes & we
are
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — 1Merlm Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastem Mountains and Ptedrnont Region
Projectlftr AppwAnate f &i2 Acre Trgaftlimore Road Gty/ County. Advance0avie Sarnptmg DatK 4/15/12
AppskaWOw. w. David Rt =mW, "Of Associates State: NC Sampft Pbfffi: DP-3
Inv (s): &ad Uu W, ECS Section, Town". Range:
Laruform (fie, terrace, etc.): 8ottomtand Hardwoods Local relief (concave, convex. none):
Subr (LRR or MLRA).
Lot:
Long
Slope (%): 2
Sail Map Will Name: Rasalo fine seraiv foam NW1 c1mitcation:
Are r / hydrafogic conWons on the stte typical for this time of year? Yes M No 0 pf no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegsta11on �. SOD __a, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal CframrawwW present? Yes ® No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , SOD _g, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, expfakr any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, barter, Important features, etc.
Hy&OW,Ne Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Sod Present? Welland Yes No � wltMn as a Yes _ R qo
are present. The sampling point is located within a
r1TlMILKA MT
Wmer•Stahmd Loaves (89)
Aquatic Fauna (Bt3)
Tare Aquatic Plants (6t4l
Hydm pn &a* odw (C 1)
Oxldttod Rhimsphsies on lining ROOs (C3)
Presence of Roduced horn (04)
Reem tnm Reduclten in TUled sob (Gil)
Thin Muc* W= (67)
pitier (Ergrtattt In Remarks)
Surface Water Presets? Yes rl No , M
Waller Table Present? Yes —0 No _❑
Saturatlon Present? Yes _❑ No —0
are
Depth (Indies):
Depth Qndres): 4
Depth (inches): _._� Wellarn! Hydrology Present? Yes _M Ab _.n
US Army Corps of Engmeers Eastern WwAaars and Piedhwd Antodm Vern

VEGETATION (pour Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet J
t, Salix nigra
2. Fraxinus pennsylanica
3. Ulmus Americana
4. Uquidambar styraciflua
5.
8.
7.
8.
Saoitn shnb Stratum (Plot sire:
1. Satbt nlgra
2. Acer negundo
3. Fraxinus pemtgylanica
4. Uimus ericam
S. Uquhlambar styracnlua
8.
7.
S.
Herb Stratum (Pbt Size: 30 t
1. Woodwardia areolata
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
B.
8.
10.
11.
12.
Woody wne Shahan kPlot slae ford 1
1. Toxloodendron radicam
2.
3.
4,
5.
an a
The daninard vegetation is hydrophyft,
10
So = Total Cover
20
18
10
t0
10
■
= TomCtx�er
10
to a
20
� a TotaO
Sampling Point: DP-3
013E
FWhMAtafBLI:Af�o►FAC: F
total PtuoiF
4
ft
Tbtat Are 08L.' FAM m FAC.
75._
(�
Taml9L Cstflor d:
xt=
MultirAy
1
5 X20
10
C 3 x3=
e
OBL
x 4 a
FACW
x5-
FACW
11 (A)
00
lei
FACW
FAC
Prevatenea hulax = EVA
t A t
1- Rapid Tees for Hydro^* Vegetation
2 - Oomini me Test Is >50%
3. Prevatenme Index Is s3Ar
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Reunadcs or on a separate sheet)
t Problematic Hydrophyllc Vegetation' (FEtplein)
'Indicators of hyft soll and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Oefbdtlone of Four Vewtation Strata:
Fat;
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
S*bvifShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
tltan 3 lit DON and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Hwb -Ali herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants, less than 3.28 ft tail.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
""rephoc
vegemion
Preece Yes --R No _l
US Amry Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

901L Sampong Polrht DP•3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indlestors.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
riches) Color (moist) % Ed (moist) ' % Type' L.or? Texture Remarks
0.4, 7.5YR 302 100 L
412 2.5Y 411 W 7 -M 413 C iii L
' Type: C=Cortoentratlon, DGDeplotmn, RM=Roduced Matrix, MS= Mated Send Grains. $Location: PL-Pore L ni ft m=matrtx. I
Hydric Sall Indicators:
tutors for Problematic ttydrlc Sofisa
II Histosol (Al)
❑ Stowed MaMx (Sip
2 Cm Mack (A10) Pn.RA 14
❑ 1)
II Elpedon (A2)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
-7
II Coast Prairie Redox (A15) (I M 147,
II Black Ffistic (A3)
❑ Palyvabre Below Surface (SS) (MLRA
❑ Ptedmord FlkxulytaW Solis (Fig) OWLAA
II HydroW SuNide (A4)
la, "m)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (IILAA 147,148)
135,147)
_L.1 Red Perert Material (TF2)
II Show Layers M
❑ LMSmy G1eyed Mafrbk (F2)
D Very Shatlaar Dark Surface (TF12)
II 2 an Muck (A10) (M 19)
Depleted Ma k (F3)
-0 Other fttain In Remarks)
II Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (FS)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Depleted Oink Wilace"
II Sandy Mucky mere! (Si) (LRR K ❑ Redox Depressions (Frp
�rtd� of t and
IILAA 147,148)
❑ Sandy l3 Matrix (�
❑ kcrr�tganese (lasses (F12) O.M f0.
w&W d hydrology rtust be prt>sr urdess
doabed or pr�rt�C
❑ Sandy Redox (85)
MLRA 138)
❑ Urnbric Surface (F13) WM 135.122)
❑ Pledrnonl Floodplaln Soft (F19) MIA 148)
Restrkfhre Layer Of observed):
Type:
Depth (Irhohes): Hydric, Sao Presow Yes ❑ 11D
[
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastem Mountains and Plodmont - 4rdefim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
PmjedMe: Approximate 60.12 Acre TractGaltimore Road _ City /Courutr. Advance/Davie
Sarriplmg Date: St61112_
mow: David Rtdunond, MoGM Associates State: NC
Samq*rg Polrrt OP -4
Invastigator(s): Brad amdcel, ECS Section. Township, Range:
Lwxtorm (hNstope. terreoe, etc.): HrBWW. Scr 66hrub Local retie! (concave, convex, nonsr Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LM or MIAA): La1: Long Datwn:
Soil Map Unit Name: Rasalo fine sandy Iam NW] dmwca m.
Are dhwfx / hydrologic muff am an the site typical for this tune of yearn Yes 0 No (It no. wain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ . Soft . or Hoology $Vdflcardly &WrbeV Are 'NomW preserd? Yes ®tda []
Are Vegetation CI Scil er Hydrology natur* pmUmm fo? (if rweded, explain any mmm in Rem uk&)
SUFAFAARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations. tramed& Imuatart fastfurmar3_ ante
Hydroptq* Vegehdlon PnEli5lw Yes No �Q
to the Sampled Area
Hyddc sad Present? Watland Yes No n wMdn a WaVwW Yes —� No _ j1
HydmkW Pm"a Y88 No
The mnpfmg poird is tocat� Im a mod. The v�� The sa sam o be east a we>�.
egetelion appears to be mom at Isgs1 wroe during fie growing seasm
n r arnvLVaar
Wdfmd Hydrology b diceb :
SwIme' Water (All)
High MIN Tats (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water 6Narlcs (131)
SeOwd Deposits 00
" Deposits (am
Atgw Mat or Cnrsa (134)
ftmm
hWwideiton Vile on AMW Imagery (137)
Swlace Water Present?
Water Talde Present?
sabaation Present?
Water - slanted Leaves (Bf)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Hydrogen Sutifde Odor (Ct)
Oxidized on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced bon (C4)
Regent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sous (CM
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Yes n No Depth W dres%
Yes . n No Depth "w):
Yes n No Depth Orichm)•
Welland Hydrology vreseW Yea _a eta _n
US Amly Corps of Ergumrs Eaatem Mot ga:m and PreQmont — lyderim versim

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Two Stratum (Won size: 30 feet )
t,
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7,
6.
Sadha Shrub Stradnn (Plot size: 30 feet !
1.
2.
3.
4.
fi.
8.
7.
8.
Kerb Stratum OU d: Meg! t
1.
2. Fescue
3.,
A.
5.
8. .
7.
8.
9.
10.
I1.
2.
Waoty Vdro StmSmt (Pfd sire: 3o feat I
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
45
40
86 -
■
■
■
s
e
■
■
■
■
■
■
nemar¢s: I'M= pnow n=D= ners or on a separate sheet.
The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic. The sampling point is I
appears to be mowed al least owe during the graving season.
Sampling Point:: DP-4
u::,':_:.
Ilc - -� .,�; ..r ►. :,Iii
T0%caiw at
.
Rift x2=
X3=
OWN x4=
x5= S
fRVt& 2 -VU 6 tai
D i . Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 . Dominance Test Is >5096
3 - Prevalettoe Index is QA'
D 4 mWorthlg
data in PAmarka stwo
013 Prablerttatic Hydrophtr6o Vegetation, (Explain)
NI
'ttx%Q10M of hydtic ad and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless dfshaw or problematic.
De tthIM of Four Veastation Strata:
in a field. The vegetation
TWO - Woody plants. excluding vines, 3 in. (7.e cm) or
more In diameter at breast heigtt (DBN). regardless of
hd^
Sap*961uub - Woody pleats, excluding vines, less
fttan 3 in. DBH and greater tfiart 3.28 ft (1m) W.
Herb - A6 tterbaceot a (n wwoody) plants. regardless
of size, and woody plants, less titan 3.28 ft tab.
Woody Ow - Ali vxody Vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydropf"a
Vegetatloe r�l
Preset? Yes --0 No _Lt
US Army Corm of Engineers Eastem Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL ' Sam Point DP-4.
Profile Description: (Desaibe to the depth needed to doxzarwa the indicator or confirm the absence of frrdlaams )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches) Color (mist) % Color (molst) % Type, L.oca Texture Remarks
0-12 7.6 YR 6/1 so SYR 5/6 20 C M
'Typo: C_CatxxrrtbaUon, D- Deplebon, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS- Masked Sand Gmbts. Uceftt PL--P= Unb4 U=Mabk
Hydric Soil Indicatcre:
1nr p Hydft Sofia'
❑ Histosol (A1)
❑ Stripped Matrix (SS)
❑ 2 an Mutt (A10) OMRA 14n
II Histk PPedon (A2)
❑ Dark Surface (sn
Q o Praufe Redn (AIS) WM 147.
Black H10c (A3)
❑ Patyvdue Below Surface (S8) MM
❑ PWdwd Roodpfain Sob OF19) MM
a Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
147,148))
Q Thin Dark Sudm (SM WM 147,146)
wk VIII)
D Red Parent (TF2)
II growled wyera M
11 LoarnY alb met in
J] Vey Shy Da* luxe (TF12)
0 2 cm (duck (A10) MR N))
Ia Depleted AMaUbc (F3)
-j3 O0w n )
El Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) p Redox Dark Surface (FS)
0 Thick Dark Surface (At2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
II Sendy Mucky fdkteral (St) (LRR N, II pd" Deere (FS)
�'bxs of and
MLRA 147.148)
x A hydrabN em st be preser I. antes
Q Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Q 1=4ft anew Mann (F12) (LRR T0.
disturbed or Dom.
Q Sandy Redox (86)
MLRA 138)
Q Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplabr Soft (F18) (WMA 148)
Restrktive Layer (H observed):
Type:
Depth (mss): Hydrk Sail PMesaff oleo am
US Army Corp of Engineers Eastern Mwala3ns and PW&wM — buerhn Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site:_/ippro mate 888.12 Acre Traditahrom Road C ky /Couirty. Advancaeavie _ Sempft Date: &'13/12
AppilcanH Owner: David Richmond. McGO Associates State: NO SampWg Point: DP-5
Investigator(s): Brad Lackey, ECS Section, Townstdp, Range:
Landform (irillsiope, terrace. etc.): Hiblope, Scrub-Shrub focal relief (concave. corwex, none): Stops ( %): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lan. Long: Datum:
Soo Map Umt Name: Raeeto fine sandy loam NW l classification:
Are climatic/ hydrology con== on the site typloal for ttds timed year? Yes _1 No [] (If no, explain In Ran auks.)
Are Vegetation 11.80 11 Or Hy&Ofogy, I sofficantly d9wbed? Are Vomr W Oran nmumes! present? Yes ® No [❑
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soo 1, or HydaIogy ❑ naturally Woblen W (If mteeded, W#& any answers In Ramada)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydmplrytic Vegetation Preserd? Yes ❑ No
to the SWWed Area
Hydit Soil Present? Wetland Yes No n w1Udn a Welland? Yes ,l No
Hyftlogy PreserM Yes No
ftydroplrylic vegan Is not present. The sampiNg Is not meted wilt a wetland.
The sampWg pM is local ecf In a Held. The vegetation appears W be moored at feast roe during the growing season.
HYDROLOGY
Wellatrw Hydrology bw1catore:
Surface Water (At)
High Water Tattle M
Saturation (A3)
Wafer Mamks (131)
sed>me t Deposits (EM
Drift("
Algal Mat or gust (04)
x(80
bKurMallon visible on Aerial imagery (en
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Press;V
Saturation Present?
WatorStamm Leaves MM
Axpaik Fatma (R13)
True ftak PWAb (014)
Hoagen'S *Odor(ct)
on Uving (CM
,Presetwd Reduced iron (C4)
'Rxtoent bon Rmsdaa m In TfJed soft (CM
TIM Kick sumtaoe (an
Other pqft In Rte)
Yes n No Depth ondtes):
Yes El No Deo & dws):
Yes n No Otrplb (indmes):
Surface Soo Cracks MM
❑,spyv consrmvedea)
❑ fthfi ge Patterns (010)
Q " Tfim L6ies (1316)
❑ uq'saason Waswrabio (G2)
Q C'MYQM(CO)
Q S=Mb n ViSW on Aemfal Imagery fC9)
❑ Stunted or Sind Plants (D1)
❑ Gazonor
pluc Position (132)
0 WWow AMMard WM
❑ KcrOlopograpfft ReW (Da))
❑ FAO NeulrW Test M
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yee ._0 No _❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mouftins and Piedmont —Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plat size: 30 teat t
1-
4.
�v
B.
7.
Saolln"hrub Stratum (Plot size: 31) feet 1
t.
2.
3,
4.
5.
B.
7,
p
91T
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet 1
1. Fesous Species
2. Jurtws roementntq
3. Uquidambar sty = Mua
4. Comyza g@ntadensis
5. Amaranthus palmed
B._
7.
8.
8.
t1.
45
30
10
5
b
86
Total Cover
■
■
■
■
■
Sampling Point: DP-5
rlf tel: •,�� •�1 _- !
1
_
x2=
1
xaT
a
3
x4m
12
x5=
(A)
iB (B)
O 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetatton
0 2 - Dominance Test IS >SD%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphotogbal Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data to Remarks or on a separate sheet)
FACP Problematic Hydrophytio Vegetation' (Explain)
6L
AC 'hn&atcre of hyddc soll and wetland hydrology must be
A(;i present, unless disturbed or problematic.
r Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
wongww a (Plot Sim ��t I .s ■.1��
I � . — ---fl
2. �.
4. - z�
= Total Cover
Remaft. (Include photo numbers Here or on a separate sheet.).
The dominant vegetation is trydropfydic. The sampling point is located to a field. The vegetation
appears to be mowed at least once during the growing season.
Jtmars roemeranus appeared stressed (brown) due to lack of water.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 am) or
more to diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 328 ft (1 m) tad,
Herb — All herbaceous (nonanroody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants, less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
HXdrophytic
Pte? n Yes _ n N. m
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Interim Version

501L Sampfing Point
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to documerathe indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth , Matrix Redox Features
(Ind=) Color (molst) =A Color (mod % _ Type' Loe Tome Remarks
0-12 7S YR SH 8o 5YR SM 20 C M
'Type: C- Concentration. D= Depldton, RM= Reduced Malik MS-- Masked Sand Drains cn: PL=Pore Lirdng, M4hft.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils'
II FWasol (Al)
11 Stdpped Ma k (S8)
❑ 2 an Muds (A10) (MLRA 14f)
LJ HM Wpedcn (A2)
Q Dark Surface (S7)
0 Coast Prairie Redox (AI G) (MLRA 147,
Q slack HWk: (A3)
11 Pdpalue Below Surface (S6) (MLRA
0 Piedmont R oodptaM Soils (F111) (MLRA
Q Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
147,148))
Q Thin Dark Surface (89) WM 147,1481
196,147)
_Ej Red Parent Materiel (TF2)
Q strayed Layers (Ab)
Loamy Gleyecl Mat& (F2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Q 2 an Muds (A10) (LRR N))
IQ�
tpl Depleted Matt (F3)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Dewed Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Q Reltox Dark Smfaoe (F6)
Q T We k Park surface (Al2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
• Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR I'4 Q Redox
'Indicates of hydrophytic vegetatbn and
MLRA 147,148)
• Sandy Meyed Mato("
Q ese Maw (F12) (LRR N,
weduW hydrology must be present, uniess
disturbed or problematic,
Q Sandy Raft (351
WM 1
0 Umbde Surface (F13) (MLRA 196,122)
Piedmont Roodplabn Sow (Flo) (MRLA 148)
Restrictive L.ayw (If observed):
Type:
Deo )_ Hydrlc Soll Present? M Yes Q, oto
are
US AmW Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — knterim Version

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Version 4.1
Weiland Site Name Wetland ID H Data Se ember'2(
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Luckey, -ECS
Level III Ecoregionj Piedmont i Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek
River Basin Yadkin -PeeDae USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 04040101
'O-Yes _0 No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressom is apparent Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years): Noteworthy stressors Include, but are not limited
to the following,
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, stone damage. salt intrusion, eta)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear - cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? C -Yes t'.j No
Regulatory Considerations (se lect all that apply to the assessment area)
rj Anadromous fish
(i Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
C Publicly owned property
L N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Conosm (AEC) (including buffer)
r Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classificatlons of HOW, ORW, or Trout
[
i Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(0)41sted stream or a tributary to a 303(d }listed stream
What type of naturat stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
r.) Biac kwater
r Brownwater
r1 Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) 0 Lunar r . Wind r Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal Island? i_`,- Yps �.` No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? r'� Yes. C. No
Does the assessment area experience overbank
Yes ry No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS- VS
- A (:r A Not severely altered
r B r` B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation,' fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
to Surface and Sub-Surfece Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in' hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District webske) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
51 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
C A J9. A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
`� B (' B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation)_
C. C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WP
3a, r_`- A r` A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C,, B r" B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
n C f•' C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r.1 D r D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
ri B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil proffle -in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Tectinicai Committee for Hvdric3nilc mddnnm fnr
regional indicators.
4a. 0,A Sandy soil
IMP, B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
0, C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redwrimorphic features
r-,-' D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b, Cr A
Sol ribbon < 1 inch
(4)-B
Soil ribbon 21 inch
4c..G_A
No peat or muck presence
0 B
A peat or muck presence
6. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
rtt A C° A We or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
0 B rs, B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C" C r' C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6, Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box-in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal-Plaln and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS
A
5M
[ A
2M
0 A
210% impervious surfaces
B
G B
C B
< 10% impervious surfaces
r C
r C
01C
Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
El D
I? D
R D
2 20% coverage of pasture
ME
BE
I? E
2:20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
Pi F
r F
[ F
2 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
r± G
[ G
f] G
2 20% coverage of clear -cut land:
T I H
0 H
tj H
Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment arealwetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
C ., Yes M No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank Is weland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A 2 50 feet
r' B From 30 to < 50 feet
C C From 15 to < 30 feet
r' D From 5 to < 15 feet
C` E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
C- 515 -feet wide 0 > 15 -feet wide (` Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r_', Yes n No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
C Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
I', Exposed — adjacent open water with width 2 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
$. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland typelwetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
r, A
rt` A
2100 feet
r B
C' B
From 80 to < 100 feet
r- C
r` C
From 50 to < 80 feet
C' D
C D
From 40 to < 50 feet
r1' E
r` E
From 30 to < 40 feet
C:. F
rj F
From 15 to < 30 feet
C G
C G
From 5 to < 15 feet
C H
r H
< 5 feet

Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C, A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
A, B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C, C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
G A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C: B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C' C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland TM (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is dear -cwt, select W for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
OA OA OA t 500 acres
C B
C j B
(', B
From 100 to < 500 acres
Ci C
C' C
C` C
From 50 to < 100 acres
Cr D
ID
r
(' D
From 25 to < 50 acres
f)E
C,,E
0E
From 10 to <25acres
C F
C_F
Ct F
From 5 to < 10 acres
0 G
t i G
n G
From 1 to < 5 acres
r H
C.ti,H
C H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C? I
rj,1
0.1
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
i' J
C' J
C? J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
f'i K
C` K
0 K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
C, A Pocosin is the full extent (t 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
rt B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other- Natural Area — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate boxes) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (r appropriate). Boundaries are farmed by four4ane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
Cl A ir, A
2:500 acres
B AR B From 100 to < 500 acres
Ci C G C From 50 to < f00 acres
i, D (; D From 10 to < 50 acres
C, E 0 E < 10 acres
(7, F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
i" Yes C` No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non forested areas a 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
C. A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
r B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
r. C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area Is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
r- A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
t• B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after ciearcutting or
clearing. it also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C' A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
t i B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
0, C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
ry Yes C No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, slip to Metric -1 B:
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
t1 A a 25% coverage of vegetation
0 B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
In airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
c f% A (,= A Canopy closed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
a (` B (.) B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U [ C ; C Canopy sparse or absent
cr A 0 A Dense mid - story/sapling layer
v Os B C•`. B Moderate density mid -story/sapling layer
2 t~ C C, C Mid -story/sapling layer sparse or absent
(' A
r, A
Dense shrub layer
t B
f', B
Moderate density shrub layer
C_r C
r_;= C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
r A
C. A
Dense herb layer
C B
4g, 6
Moderate density herb layer
Jo
(' C
i' C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
r` A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
OF B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
C,- j A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 Inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
Co- A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches In diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
C' B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
!j A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
1~ B Overbank flow is severely atered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r, D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
tes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID H Date
September 20, 2012
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name /Organization
Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Hydrology
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO-
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function
Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Conditinq
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
MEDIUM_
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
H1011
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
.ems
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportumty
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
ConditiontOpportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM_
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Wetland Site Name Wetland ID J
WetiancIT"I Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont
River Basinj Yadkin -PeeDee
Yes
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies l)ser Manual Version 4.1
within 48 hrs?
version 4.1
Date September 20, 2012
Assessor Name /OrgaMzatlon Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek
USGS B -Digit Catalogue Unit 03040101
-80.469531W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not bell within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dkes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub- surlboe discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortally, insect damage, disease, stone damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
is the assessment area intensively managed? t~ Yes w No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
r Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
CI Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Cl Publicly owned property
D N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
LI Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
G Designated NCNHP reference community
0 Abuts a 303(d)4isted stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -lsted stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
rs Blackwater
CZ Brownwater
Q Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) r_ Lunar r Wind C4 Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yes q,, No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank
normal rainfall conditions?
r,� Yes 6. No
Yes � No
t Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and-vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User ManuaQ. If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS VS
r!, A %, A Not severely altered
r-) B r B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, beddhhg, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [f appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of Influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
51 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
Sub
19 A
r!) A
Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C B
, B
Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation),
t*) C
C) C
Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment arealwetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. C. A r, A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C • B t B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C' C t' C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C D C• D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
C B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

boll Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for,Hyddc Sails guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. C`. A Sandy soil
0 B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
R` C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. C:, A
Soil ribbon < 1 inch
ME, B
Soil ribbon Z 1 inch
4c 0 A
No peat ' or muck presence
t i B
A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub- surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
C. A Av A Lithe or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
r B C B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
,1,C C., C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box In each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregton.
WS
5M
2M
(Z' A
R, A
Ll A
r A
2 10% impervious surfaces
0 B
01 B
(r_ B
< 10% impervious surfaces
G C
fi- C
G C
Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
(-j D
r D
D
>_ 20% coverage of pasture
r E
E
[ E
t 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
O F
® F
O F
s 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G G
[-i G
r G
2:20% coverage of clear -cut land
r H
[ H
j-- H
Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage -or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Qj Yes Ct No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
C A t 50 feet
C•` B From 30 to < 50 feet
r C From 15 to < 30 feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
r • E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
Q 515 -feet wide C > 15 -feet wide C' Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C` Yes C., No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(? Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C` Exposed - adjacent open water with width Z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
(Z' A
C:` A
z 100 feet
C` B
r. B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C' C
l` C
From 50 to < 80 feet
C` D
C. D
From 40 to < 50 feet
C;. E
C`, E
From 30 to < 40 feet
r F
0 F
From 15 to < 30 feet
r G
r G
From 5 to < 15 feet
C` H
r H
< 5 feet

munoaoon uuration — assessmem area common memc
Answer for:assessment area dominant landform.
C� A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
( B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
r, C Evidence of long - duration inundation or very long - duration inundation ( to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicatonx of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
r B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box In each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (W n. the sae of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland TM (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select W for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
0 A
r,A
C A
a 500 acres
C. B
B
r B
From 100 to < 500 acres
r C
0 C
C7 C
From 50 to < 100 acres
C D
r. D
t_i D
From 25 to < 50 acres
C) E
Ct E
r E
From 10 to < 25 acres
r F
C7 F
{' F
From 5 to < 10 acres
IRS, G
r G
(.' G
From 1 to < 5 saes
C, H
r H
(^ H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
01
C" I
Cl I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
C
CJ
GJ
From 0.01 to <0.1acre
r' K
t? - K
C. K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -ad
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
0 A Pocosin is the full extent (a 90 %) of its natural landscape sure.
(.)B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape shm.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected-(Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous,
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four4ane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
'Well
Loosely
C. A
C A
a 500 acres
C B
C` B
From 100 to < 500 acres
r C
(' C
From 50 to < t00 acres
C D
C D
From 10 to < 50 acres
E
0,E
< 10 acres
r F
r F
Wetlannd type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes t r No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance-from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas 2:40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
r• A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
r B No artificial edge Wthin 150 feet in four (4) to seven (n directions
C C An artficial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
Iii. Vegetative Composition —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
r A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
Of B Vegetation Is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but notdominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
r, C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
f_" A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
I" B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
r C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment areahNettand type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(s'� Yes 'r. No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
C A 2, 25% coverage of vegetation
,' B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a pox in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (W) separately.
(` A
AA
WT
t t B
c
r A
In A
Canopy closed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
Shrub layer sparse or absent
0 B
0 B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
v
C C
C C
Canopy sparse or absent
c
(' A
C A
Dense mid -story/sapling layer
C B
4 B
Moderate density mid - story/ saping layer
C' C
(; C
Mid -story/sapling layer sparse or absent
(` A
C? A
Dense shrub layer
t t B
0 B
Moderate density shrub layer
y C° C
r C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
0 A
0 A
Dense herb layer
r B
C B
Moderate density herb layer
C
w* C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
(' A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
C_`.,'B Not
18. Diameter Class Distribution — wettand type condition metric
Co,, A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
C B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 Inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
C C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris —wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
C, A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability)_
r, B 'Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland typefopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A C5 B r C (` D
���� `�`��'�j��s I � • �' '��'� ��i �i'�1 � ��, �'4y'i { dP 1 ,1c 44�� � �(pgxX�i��
IL�Gi��VSIY� [' " 11 Y+EL.� 1 lY,YtG i����f •ii,Ti., Ca�i,"+1hiA4?r�'�y �-V.
v.
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms beaver dams, and stream incision.
C.'• A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C_. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID J Date September 20, 2012
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name /Organization Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (YIN) NO
Assessmentarea is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub - function Rating Summa
Function
Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub- Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW_
Conditon
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM _
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA _
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Kaung k:alculawr Version 4.1
Wetiand Site Name Wetland ID N Data September 20, 2012
Wetland Type Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Namefftant mtlon Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Level III Ecoregton Piedmont 4 _ Nearest Named Water Body - 03040101
River B�slnl Yadkin- PeeDee USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit Buffalo Creek
(),Yes Q) No Precipttation within 48 hrs? Latituda/Lonaitude (dect- dearees) 35.959095N- - 80.4654462W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub- surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, dear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Q' Yes (` No
Regulatory Considerations (select all 97 55M to the assessment area)
G Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
0 NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
C Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
[i Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
r Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORIN, or Trout
Q Designated NCNHP reference community
0 Abuts a 303(d)4isted stream or a tributary to a 303(d)4isted stream
What type of natural, stream Is associated with the wetland, If any? (check all that apply)
f Blackwater
A. Brownwater
[i Tidal (If tidal, check one of the following bolres) r Lunar r, Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f' Yes IF,. No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? r, Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? O Yes ( No
1. Ground Surface ConditionfVegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable.
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect
GS VS
C' A r. A Not severely altered
C B (t• B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and subsurface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hyddc soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
51 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
C, A (~ A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C• B• B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
1. Water Storage /Surface Relief —assessment area/watiand type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a, C A r, A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C` B r. B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C ('1 C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C D r D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
r B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric il
Check' a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hvdric Soils ouidance for
regional indicators.
4a. r_`, A Sandy soil
() B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
r
� C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
Dv D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r, E Histosol or histic spipedon
4b. 0 A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
re—, B Soil ribbon z 1 inch
'4c.' %} A No peat or muck presence
ri B A peat or muck presence
Discharge Into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc-
Surf Sub
r A C A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
t) B ( B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
d" j 0 df` C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A G A [i A a 10% impervious surfaces
CI B R B 0 B < 10% impervious surfaces
r C G C r1 C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
r-J D � D j- D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
ri E G E [) E z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
R. F rin F L F z 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G E! G jJ G a 20% coverage of clear -cut land
r H Z H CI H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lade of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment arealwetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes D" , No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note W a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
t' A z 50 feet
(' B From 30 to < 50 feet
rf- C From 15 to < 30 feet
C. D From 5 to < 15 feet
C E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomceed, combine widths ofchannels/bralds for a total width.
It!.. 5154eet wide III > 154eet wide C Other open water (no tributary present)
Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
0 Yes ry No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r:1 Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C, Exposed — adjacent open water with width z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
70.
7d,
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
` A
r- A
z 100 feet
r i B
(` B
From 80 to < 100 feet
Ct) C
rs, C
From 50 to < 80 feet
0 D
r D
From 40 to < 50 feet
0 E
C E
From 30 to < 40 feet
r` F
r, F
From 15 to < 30 feet
r G
r G
From 5 to < 15 feet
r H
r H
< 5 feet

Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
( B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
T C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition —assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth Since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
(f', B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland,
r, C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Checks box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (Wr), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) ('d applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boun_ daries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select W for the FW column.
WT WC FWI
III A Ili A OA
ijB I^B rB
rC rc.c
E CE C, E
CF C'F ("SF
ir'G 0G 0G
CH 0H rjH
q rI
CJ C. J C. J
C7K C'K C?K
if applicable)
2 500 acres
From 100 to < 500 acres
From 50 to < 100 acres
From 25 to < 50 acres
From 10 to < 25 acres
From 5 to < 10 acres
From 1 to < 5 acres
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Poc_osins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (a 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C, B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13 Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked In each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustmeaL This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four4ane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely_
A r A 2 500 acres
[' B C' B From 100 to < 500 acres
C Ot C From 50 to < 100 acres
)D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
t E Cl E < 10 acres
t^, F C) F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
t ,Yes C. No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edgers include
non - forested areas Z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass-
r; A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
C,:• B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
r ,C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
16. Vegetative Composition —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C? A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
f' B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C' C Vegetation severely altered from reference In composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum Inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C' A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
Q- B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C` C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
C:., Yes [ , No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c fdr non -marsh wetlands.
rt. A a 25% coverage of vegetation
. ! B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
In airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetla_ nd type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o C_`, A t^, A Canopy closed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
� B )
0 B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U r` C r,) C Canopy sparse or absent
o C A (] A Dense mid- story/sapling layer
('
, B � B Moderate density mid -story/sapling layer
(` C C) C Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
t~ A 0A- Dense shrub layer
t () B (' B Moderate density shrub layer
ro 0 C [ • C Shrub layer sparse or absent
a r� A C A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C C' C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
C A large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- Inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
C B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
C' A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r) B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
r:1 C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
rv`r A Lalrge logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas Indicate open water_
C, A C`.• B n C C D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely sitar hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
r A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
CF. B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
t' C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID N Date September 20, 2012
Wetland Type Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Assessor Name/Organization Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 fleet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y(N) YES_
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N) NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA,
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
'NA
Pollution Change
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Particulate Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity, NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN) NA
Soluble Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Function Rating Summary
Function
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
'NA
Habitat
Condition/Opportunity,
"NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
1-OW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW —
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1'
maung Liaicuia[or version 4a
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID 0 Data September 20, 2012
Wetland Type , Brim Wetland Assessor Namefftantzation Luckey,.ECS Carolinas _
Level III Ecoregion - Piedmont 1. MA Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek
River Bas1n _Yadkin- ijbeDee USGS &Diglt Catalogue Unit 03040101
Yes
within 48 hrs?
35.959760N. - 60.46528SW
Evidence of stredsors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment;area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, If
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, -ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, eta.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r?. r. No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to assessment area)
C Anadromous fish
17 Federally_ protected spades or State endangered or threatened species
r NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
G Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
G Publicly owned property
13— N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)_
0 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
jl Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, If any? (check all that apply)
r Bladkwater
[; Brownwater
r Tidal (N tidal, check one of the following boxes) !? Lunar C' Wind C' Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yep t�, No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C' Yes C No
Does the assessment area experience overbenk
rainfall
Yes OS No
* Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland If applicable (see User Manual). If a reference Is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS I VS
(` A r,A Not severely altered
C;`,- B Co, B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity'of approprate], hydrologic alteration)
* Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub- surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease In hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
51 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Sun` Sub
C A C:'., 'A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
r. B C B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
CZ, C C` C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage /Surface Relief — assessment areahvetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type W.
AA WT
3a. C A rk A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
rj B r B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 Inches to 1 foot deep
f` C r C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r D r`, D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r, A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
C" B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area, condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. ) A Sandy soil
C_, B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rh¢ospheres)
% C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
t1 D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. 0 A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon t 1 inch
4c, 0 A No peat or muck presence
0 B A peat or muck presence
f Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of subsurface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
09� A QV A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
C B f' B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C!, C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessmentarea and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
5 Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5114, and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective, riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide In the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregfon.
WS 5M 2M
G A G A OA a 10% impervious surfaces
0 B 6 'B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
0 C M C ❑ C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C D P D C D 2:20% coverage of pasture
G E ❑ E ©.E a20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F O F G F a 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
CI G G G CI G 2:20% coverage of clear -cut land
[i H El H [ H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment arealwetiand complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
C, Yes R No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected ff ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
CC . A 2:50 feet
t^ B From 30 to < 50 feet
t> C From 15 to < 30 feet
!' D From 5 to < 15 feet
C`J E < 5 fleet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/bralds for a total width.
C' 5.15 -feet wide ;' > 15 -feet wide r. Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
0 Yes C No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
C7) Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
f" Exposed — adjacent open water with width k 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
5, Wetland Width at the Assessment Area— wetland typehnretland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C A r A a 100 feet
C B r- B From 80 to < 100 feet
0 C r, C From 50 to < 80 feet
i'' D r, D From 40 to < 50 feet
C` E C E From 30 to < 40 feet
r F C? F From 15 to < 30 feet
C. G r, G From 5 to < 15 feet
r. H C H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C7 A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
C" B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
r C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
R A Sediment deposition iss not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C'_ B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C� C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland,
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area. the
sae of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. ff assessment area is clear -cut, select °K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
Ci A A A a 500 acres
C,, B
C1 B
C` B
From 100 to < 500 acres
0 C
O C
C C
From 50 to < 100 acres
C"+ D
C' D
C. D
From 25 to < 50 acres
C? E
C, E
0 E
From 10 to < 25 acres
C? F
C F
t i F
From 5 to < 10 acres
C'G
TG
C;G
From lto <5acres
i` H
C H
r H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C I
C! I
f ` I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
0 J
C J
0 J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
t• K
C. K
r' K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
C~ A Pocosin is the full extent (Z 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is J W0A of the full extent of its natural landscape size,
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
One corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well
Loosely
A
C± A
2:500 acres
= B
C_'s B
From 100 to < 500 acres
C C
Co- C
From 50 to < 100 acres
C D
C' D
From 10 to < 50 acres
r E
( E
< 10 acres
F
F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r` Yes r No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect— wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas a 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
r,. A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
CF, B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
r C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C' A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
le. B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant In
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% covet of exotics).
r B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 500/0 cover of exotics.
r C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure —assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. is vegetation present?
Co. Yes t" No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate peroent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
t* A t 25% coverage of vegetation
(_� -B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box In each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
cr A . 0 A Canopy dosed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural prooesses
rz
f'j,, 8 (j B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
v
C C Co) C Canopy sparse or absent
o C A t^ �A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
v? C, B Cop B Moderate density mid - story /sapling layer
° CK C () C Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
.o -C A 0 A Dense shrub layer
t r, B tj B Moderate density shrub layer
r C (. C Shrub layer sparse or absent
�', A C`i A Dense herb layer
_ 08 r B Moderate density herb layer
(_� C t* C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
( . A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
t:•B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
r A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); marry large tress (> 12 inches DBH) are
present
t~ B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
(:, C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 incites in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability),
rt,, B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland typefopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while sold white areas indicate open water.
CA r B CC (`D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
(` A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
r B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
t':• C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID 0 Date September 20, 2012
Wetland Type Basin Wetland Assessor Name /Organization Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Welland is intensively managed (Y/N) 'YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Sub-Surf" Storage and Retention
Condition
Condition
NA
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Soluble Change Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Function Rating Summa
Function
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N),
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Nk_
Pollution Change
Condition
I-OW
Habitat
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summa
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
_
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
version 4a
Wetland Site Name Wetland ID P
Date- September 20,:
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
- ia` Assessor Name /Organization Luckey, ECS C.
Level III Ecoregloril
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek _
River Basin
Yadkmm-PdeDee
USGS 8 -131911: Catalogue Unit 03040101
CJ Yes 0- No - Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area) -
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for Instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, sat intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r!),Yes r No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
•C Anadromous fish
rl Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
G NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
G Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
C Publicly owned property
[
lj N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
0 Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
G Designated NCNHP reference community
r Abuts a 303(clKsted stream or a tributary to a 303(d )-listed stream
What We of natural stream Is associated with the wetland, if spy? (check all that apply)
t" Bladkwater
[ Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) 0, Lunar 0 Wind r Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal Island? t~ Yes t, No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substanlialiy altered by beaver? r Yes t'`,• No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? r, Yes Q. No
Ground Surface Condidon/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS)' in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS V6
T A C, A Not severely altered
G; B r- B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fi"low lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Subsurface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surt) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
51 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
r. A r` A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C, B C B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation)_
I • C r�, C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. C A r A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
f B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
r` C f C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
Co, D (: D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b, r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
I-, B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. 0 A Sandy soil
0 B Loamy or dayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C) C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximbrphic features
r1 D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b, -0 A
Soil ribbon < 1 inch
r- B
Sol ribbon a 1 inch
4c- l%, A
No peat or mud( presence
0 B
A peat or mud( presence
G Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box In each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
Q'i A r• A little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
0 B r B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C r.` C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont eceregions and 30 feet wide In the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
r A G A [] A a! 10% impervious surfaces
B 0 B G B <10 % Impervious surfaces
E-1 C G C © C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D G D [ D a 20% coverage of pasture
E G E CJ E 2!20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
[� F Q F F a 20% coverage of maintained grassiherb
G © G [I G t 20% coverage of clear -cut land
H [ H 10 H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Weiland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or'other open water?
C Yes 1:, No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric S.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the wafter body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
Ci A a 50 feet
f" B From 30 to < 50 feet
(' C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
r' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width
r_`.• 515 -feet wide C > 15-feet wide 0 Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r . Yes t" No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r` Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
r` Exposed - adjacent open water with width 2:2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Welland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex atthe assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
%i A re A 2100 feet
t~ B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C. C r`.+ C From 50 to < 80 feet
r~ D t" D From 40 to < 50 feet
r`• E r E From 30 to < 40 feet
r., F r . F From 15 to < 30 feet
r G r • G From 5 to < 15 feet
r' H r H < 5 feet

Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landfonn.
t^ A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
t• B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C,. C Evidence of long - duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
1&. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition)_
A- A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C. B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C. C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Ste — wetland type/weUand complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort withheld adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WI), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select °K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
r A 0 A 0 A t 500 acres
r_`r B
G B
0 B
From 100 to < 500 acres
r, C
C , C
C C
From 50 to < 100 acres
r D
n D
t^ D
From 25 to < 50 acres
r, E
0 E
C E
From 10 to < 25 acres
O F
r F
O F
From 5 to < 10 acres
0 G
0 G
0 G
From 1 to < 5 acres
0 H
t^, H
C H
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
1
rF 1
0 1
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
('r J
3 J
0 J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
C K
r K
(! K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — weland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
r_` A Pocosin is the full extent (z 90 %) of its natural landscape size,
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
1$. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Checkappropriate box(es) (a box may be checked In each-column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four4ane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well
Loosely
C? A
C`•' A
t 500 acres
r' B
B
From 100 to < 500 acres
j C
0 C
From 50 to < 100 acres
(:, D
0 D
From 10 to < 50 acres
C. E
0 E
< 10 acres
0 F
(;,`• F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C', Yes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condtion metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non - forested areas 2 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts-
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
(` A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
(r B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
r' C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
r• A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. tower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
(4• B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
F C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
r_`. A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
r'• B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
r. C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
r.`, Yes C No if Yes, continue to 17b. If'No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
C� A a 25% coverage of vegetation
(' B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for eachistratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
c � A r!y A Canopy closed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes.
C1 B i1 B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U (tt C !* C Canopy sparse or absent
c� A C A Dense mid - story/sapling layer
9 08 O B Moderate density mid -story/sapling layer
C:. C C C Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
1. A
( A
Dense shrub layer
t C B
O. O B
Moderate density shrub layer
C. C
0 C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
C� A
r' A
Dense herb layer
C'i B
C, B
Moderate density herb layer
C? C
C. C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
C} A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(_;, B Not A
18. Diameter Class Distribution — wetiand type condition metric
r, A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r? B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -4nch DBH.
G, C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
C` A Large togs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
Co, B Not A
21. VegetationiOpen Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
l~A CB C C_)D
s
r
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
C, A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area,
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
0, C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C`, D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
otes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name We)land ID P Date
September 20, 2012
Wetland Type _ Headgvater_Forest Assessor Name /Organization
Luckey, ECS Carolinas
Hydrology
Notes on Field-Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
-NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Sum
Function
Sub-function
Metrics
Ratmg
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
_
Sub- Surfacee Storage and Retention
Condition _
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
H} IGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/Np
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch_ Structure
Condition
LOW
_ Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

INC. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, N
PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.
One Ashley Way
Arcadia, Wisconsin 54612
November, 2012

I. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Practical Alternatives Analysis for Ashley Furniture
Industries, Inc. ("Ashley"), and its proposed improvements to Ashley's Advance, North
Carolina, furniture manufacturing and distribution facility. Ashley began examining the
need for expanding its warehouse and production capacity on the East coast in early 2006.
Before selecting the Advance, North Carolina, facility, Ashley considered various
alternative locations for its manufacturing facility and after it selected the Advance
facility it analyzed various configurations for an expansion to address its needs. This
analysis, for your convenience, is summarized in the Executive Summary portion of this
document. The preferred alternative avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands when
compared to alternative locations and alternative configurations for the proposed
expansion. 'The preferred alternative also addresses Ashley's need for constructing a
state -of -the -art manufacturing and distribution facility capable of incorporating
technological advances to allow the facility to remain viable into the future.
H. PURPOSE AND NEED
This document discusses the purpose and need for the proposed project, which involves
the expansion of a fiuniture manufacturing and distribution facility to allow it to be
operated in a cost - efficient manner to compete in the global furniture industry for years to
come. The expanded facility cannot be constructed in a manner that is similar to or
limited by traditional manufacturing layouts in the United States, which have been proven
to be inefficient, as can be seen in the massive number of plant closings in the U.S.
furniture industry. Since 2000, hundreds of furniture manufacturing plants in the U.S.
were closed because they could not compete with foreign furniture manufacturing. North
Carolina alone lost several hundred thousand furniture- related jobs. To make this project
successful and to justify the substantial investment needed to compete in the global
marketplace in the short term, the business plan for this project is to:
1. Maintain a space within the existing facility that can be used to
supplement Ashley's existing warehouse and distribution system;
2. Recognize that from a cash -flow perspective, the warehouse function
alone, while not supporting all operating costs of the existing facility, will
assist in (i) hiring more people sooner, (ii) enabling Ashley to begin
training its new employees, and (iii) reducing operating losses due to
limited revenues generated by the existing facility as a distribution center.
3. Develop a plant layout based on a goal of transitioning all planned new
construction into the first state -of- the -art furniture manufacturing plant in
the world. The concept for the expanded plant will (i) create, not limit,
jobs, (ii) provide opportunities for skilled workers, and (iii) because of its
capabilities will be able to produce high - quality furniture at lower costs to
allow the facility to remain competitive and to provide work force stability

and longevity.
If Ashley is unable to expand the facility in a manner that will achieve these objectives,
work on this project will stop or this project will be abandoned.
The purpose of this document is to analyze alternatives for satisfying Ashley's need for
additional manufacturing and warehouse space in a state -of- the -art, operationally efficient
design at Ashley's Advance, North Carolina, facility to respond to foreign competition,
while minimizing impacts to the environment. The analysis identifies Ashley's needs
with regard to facility space, raw materials, production capacity, land and rail
transportation, water supply and fire protection. The analysis identifies different
alternatives and evaluates each alternative based on Ashley's needs during the near future
and production demands and markets, the direct effect on select elements of the
environment, efficiency, cost, available technology, and logistical limits.
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. COMPANY INFORMATION
Ashley began in Chicago in 1945. In 1970, Ashley opened a 30,656 square foot
manufacturing facility in Arcadia, Wisconsin. (See Exhibit A.) The Arcadia operation
employed 35 people and realized sales of $400,000 in its first year. The factory's
product lines were limited to stereo cabinets sold to electronics manufacturers, and
occasional tables. The Arcadia facility gone through several major expansions and now
produces a complete line of household furniture, and serves as Ashley's world
headquarters.
Today, Ashley directly employs more than 18,000 people worldwide. (See Exhibit B.)
In addition, Ashley indirectly is responsible for the employment of another 12,000
people worldwide. As of December 31, 2011, Ashley directly employed no one in
North Carolina and Ashley's transportation division employed only five (5) people in
North Carolina. This project, if completed, will dramatically increase Ashley's
employment in North Carolina.
As in 1970, Ashley continues to be privately owned. The owners attribute the
company's success in part to the fact the owners have pursued a strategy of reinvesting
profits in the company to promote its growth and increase its market share.
Over the years, Ashley's product lines have expanded to meet a consumer's total
household furniture demands, as reflected in the development of the Ashley Furniture
HomeStore retail furniture stores. These stores offer bedroom, living room, and dining
room furniture, as well as furniture accessories such as pillows, pillow cases,
bedspreads, vases, mirrors, and area rugs.
2

Since 1982, Ashley's sales have grown at an annual average of 21.28% and in 2011,
achieved gross sales of more than $3.72 billion. (See Exhibit C.) Ashley anticipates
that its sales will continue to grow at an annual rate of 15 %; if it can satisfy the space
and innovative manufacturing requirements associated with this rate of growth. To
maintain this fast -paced growth and to address a need for additional production capacity
to meet increased consumer demand for its products on the Eastern seaboard, Ashley
ultimately selected a facility and site in Advance, North Carolina.
B. HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA FACILITY
The centers of population in the United States are located along the East coast, the West
coast, and in the South. Historically, Ashley's primary furniture- manufacturing
competitors were located in Virginia and North Carolina, within 500 miles of 55% of
the U.S. population and close to the ports along the East coast. Over the years, Ashley
developed one of the best shipping networks in the furniture industry because of the
substantial distance between Ashley's other plants and its major markets and because of
the need to deliver furniture to customers quickly to remain competitive. That shipping
network consists of the largest fleet of trucks and trailers in the furniture industry and
the largest intermodal container storage yard in the furniture industry.
In spite of this transportation system, with increased competition, especially from
abroad, Ashley decided to locate a production and distribution facility on the East coast,
nearer to its major markets. Beginning in early 2006, Ashley engaged in a multi-state
search for a facility to meet its needs. Ashley identified its needs as:
• 100 acres of buildable /usable space sufficient for a contiguous building;
• a truck/trailer repair facility;
• available space for parking trailers, semi -truck tractors, and cars;
• soils suitable for building and parking;
• availability of rail service;
• access /proximity to ports;
• access/proximity to Interstate or freeway highway system;
• access /proximity to airports;
• City water of adequate volume and pressure to support an ESFR fire protection
system,
• City sewer and water adequate for domestic use;
• electricity with a minimum of 100,000 amps at 480 volts
• availability of natural gas;
• available workforce for up to 1200 jobs; and
• zoning classifications to allow industrial development.
Applying these criteria, Ashley evaluated numerous potential sites in North Carolina
and other states. Enclosed as Exhibit D is a spreadsheet providing a summary

comparison of the seven (7) potential sites in North Carolina that Ashley considered. In
the end, the large size of the present site and the ability to purchase the entire site from
the same seller and in one transaction, were critical factors in Ashley's decision to
select the Advance, North Carolina, site. Free -span storage sheds on the property that
could be used for lumber - drying, raw material storage, and overflow storage of finished
goods, were especially appealing features of the Advance site, as was an existing truck
maintenance facility. The site also boasted an existing building that could be used
during the near term to help curb interim operating losses as the facility was expanded.
Based on representations made to Ashley by the previous owner of the site, the site also
offered sufficient available space to allow for a reconfiguration conducive to Ashley's
mode of production in a cost- efficient manner. The Advance, North Carolina, site,
while certainly not perfect and failing to meet some of Ashley's criteria, came closer to
meeting Ashley's criteria than any of the other sites, resulting in Ashley purchasing the
site in the summer of 2012. One of the key factors influencing Ashley's decision to
purchase the Advance site was the size of the property and representations from the
previous owner of the site that Ashley would have the ability to configure an optimal
production and warehouse layout.
The Advance facility offers the following features:
• 1.7 million square feet of existing buildings suitable for Ashley's use;
• 221 car parking stalls;
• 34 loading docks;
• Existing stormwater management system;
• Space for expansion to meet Ashley's needs; and
• Existing beds for railroad spur.
After selecting the Advance, North Carolina, location, Ashley conducted an exhaustive
analysis of potential additional alternatives to meet its production, storage, distribution,
and management needs. The alternatives Ashley considered included:
A. Maintaining the facility in its current condition with no expansion. (Exhibit E.)
B. Adding a second story to the existing facility.
C. Moving some operations to alternative locations off the current campus.
D. Demolish the existing facility and rebuild on an upland site on the property.
E. Using the area to the south of the existing facility. (Drawings S -1 and S -2)
F. Using the area to the north of the existing facility. (Drawings N -1 and N -2)
4

G. Using the area to the east of the existing facility. (Drawings E -1 and E -2)
H. Using the area to the west of the existing facility. (Drawings W -1 and W -2)
After lengthy considerations of each of these alternatives, Ashley ultimately ruled out
each alterative, except for a proposed expansion directly to the West, because the
other alteratives did not adequately address Ashley's needs for an optional
configuration to operate a state -of- the -art manufacturing facility, stormwater
management, efficient rail service, water supply, efficient handling of raw materials,
finished goods storage area, and the ability to operate in the interim construction period.
Because of the volume of Ashley's business and its plans for the development of the
new facility, the current Advance, North Carolina, facility simply has insufficient
capacity to be operated efficiently for a significant period of time. While Ashley
intends to operate the existing facility during the near term to establish a distribution
center nearer the East coast, the current facility is not adequate to enable Ashley to meet
the current and future demands of the competitive furniture market.
C. MARKET DEMANDS
1. Nature of Market
Ashley has in the past based its production and plant expansion decisions on changes in
market demands. Ashley attempts to anticipate changes in product demands and market
forces. As market demands change, Ashley considers modifying its product lines, or
adding new product lines. (See Exhibit F). The addition of a new product line dictates
that Ashley's labor force increase and Ashley's physical plant expand to accommodate
the increased labor force.
For example, Ashley added upholstered furniture to its product line about two (2)
decades ago. No one could have anticipated the success of Ashley's upholstered
furniture products. In fact, today upholstered furniture represents Ashley's most
successful product line as reflected in tremendous growth in sales of the upholstered
furniture.

Even though Ashley's volume of sales has grown impressively in the past, today Ashley
faces increased competition from furniture manufacturers around the world, particularly
from the countries in the European Economic Community (especially Italy), Mexico,
Canada, the People's Republic of China, and Indonesia. Overseas imports are driving
competition in the U.S. furniture markets. These importers' low production costs
exacerbate the disparity in production costs reflected in the inefficiencies of domestic
U.S. manufacturing facilities. The effect of this increased competition can be felt in
the more than 270 plant closings and layoffs that have occurred in the United States
from 2000 to 2010. Attached as Exhibit G is a report documenting these plant closings.
Perhaps nowhere is this downturn more painfully obvious than in the Piedmont Triad
area. During the first decade of this century, Stanley Furniture in Stanleytown, Virginia
and Bassett Furniture in Bassett, Virginia, closed plants or laid off employees. In all
2,380 people lost their jobs, resulting in lost wages, health insurance coverage, and ,
retirement savings. The loss of these jobs has had a ripple effect throughout the region,
as the dislocated workers have a greater need for government services and less
disposable income to support the balance of the area's economy.
Moreover, the furniture industry has seen a dramatic change in small retailers' ability to
carry a large inventory. Ashley thrives on aggressively pursuing these small retailers'
business, generally the most stable sector in the furniture industry. Ashley's 7-day
delivery schedule helps the retailer reduce inventory, cut overhead costs (including
financing costs), compete effectively with larger retailers who have greater inventory
capacity, and operate a more competitive business. Ashley could not effectively .
compete for these retailers' business without its large transportation fleet and sufficient
warehouse space to store what the retailer is no longer able to store.
Another significant change in the marketplace is consumers' receptiveness to the
"Ashley Furniture HomeStore" concept. The "Ashley Furniture HomeStore" concept
involves a retail location dedicated to selling Ashley furniture products, together with
other household accessories, to make it a complete household furniture retail and
interior decorating location. This concept has opened another avenue for Ashley's
furniture products to enter the marketplace.
Changes in consumers' expectations drive changes in the furniture industry. Online
sales and other factors have lead consumers to want their products now. They also want
immediate, responsive customer service. Ashley's customer service center handles
more than 10,000 telephone calls each day regarding customer orders and coordinating
its production schedule and the logistics of moving its merchandise. Operating such a
large business in a manner that will allow it to continue dictates that the organization
constantly search for operational efficiencies and coordination amongst all of its
functioning parts.
C

A crucial factor that influences Ashley's plant designs that has surfaced in recent
decades has been the advent of the importance of technology in the furniture industry.
Ashley has learned that not only must facilities be planned to utilize existing
technology, but with the fast-pace of technological changes, it must be designed to
anticipate and accommodate those changes. For the long -term viability of a facility, it
must be designed in a manner that is flexible enough to allow for implementation of
those technological advances in the most cost - efficient manner.
2. Variables Which Drive Economic Decision - Maldng by Company
a. Transportation and Delivery System
There is no doubt but that Ashley's transportation and delivery system is a key
component of Ashley's success. Ashley ships from its various facilities throughout
the United States an average of more than 418,000 pieces of furniture per week,
loading its trailers and intermodal containers 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
to help its customers fulfill their promises to the consumer of timely deliveries.
To accomplish its goal of delivering a furniture order to virtually any retailer in the
U.S. or Canada within seven days, Ashley has assembled the largest transportation
fleet in the furniture industry. Ashley's fleet consists of 520 semi truck tractors,
1,850 trailers, and 400 intermodal container chases. Ashley's own fleet carries
about 1200 shipments per week. Ashley's fleet also depends on more than 68
independent contract carriers, which carry more than 1,012 shipments of Ashley's
product each week. Ashley has made a tremendous investment in its fleet:
Aver ag eValue Total Fleet Value
Tractors $ 118,000 $ 61,950,000
Trailers $ 28,000 $ 80,343,600,000
Container chassis $ 1,000 $ 400,000
Total $ 80,405,950,000
The Ashley facilities currently receive about 500 shipments per week of raw
material and finished goods for transfer to other facilities, and ship about 2,500 loads
of finished goods per week, by rail or over the road. In other words, each week each
Ashley plant witnesses a total of about 3,000 incoming and outgoing loads. In
addition, Ashley has about 200 trailers on the road at any given time. Obviously,
this product movement is labor- intensive. Because of the intense competition in the
furniture industry and the relatively high cost of fuel, this volume of shipments again
7

mandates that Ashley find the most cost- effective method of shipping its finished
goods to its markets.
In recent years, a demographic change has led Ashley to look for alternatives to its
massive transportation fleet. The average age of Ashley's drivers has climbed to 54
Years old. With fewer young people seeing trucking jobs, the average age will only
increase in the future. This demographic change has led Ashley to look to
intermodal containers as an alternative to meet its transportation needs.
b. Business Growth
As a manufacturing business grows, its space requirements also increase. As
Ashley's sales have grown it has needed additional room to store raw materials and
component parts, to add production lines to respond to customers' demands, to house
the finished products, to provide employee parking, and to store its transportation
fleet. The tremendous success of Ashley's upholstered furniture, a more voluminous
product, means that it is shipping larger furniture products in larger cartons. To
permit continued growth and the development of the Advance, North Carolina, site
and to accommodate this current need for space at the facility, it is crucial that
Ashley's preferred alternative be permitted
c. Market and Technological Changes
Market changes, international trade agreements, increased international trade, and
technological developments, affect Ashley's production goals. Ashley must
determine how to incorporate these changes in its production plan to compete in the
marketplace. Production inefficiencies, on the other hand, increase the cost of
Ashley's products, increase the market price for the products, and negatively affect
Ashley's ability to compete. These inefficiencies do not, however, increase the value
of the product for the customer.
Ashley's overall goal is to sell the best quality furniture at the best total price. The
only way to achieve this goal is to maximize the efficiency of Ashley's production
process and to pass on the savings to the customer. The need for these efficiencies
will be discussed in further detail below.
D. COMMUNITY, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC BENEFIT
Ashley has an impressive history of working with local governments to accomplish
Ashley's goal of more efficient production and to provide benefits for Ashley and for
the area residents. Working together, these people have improved not only local
infrastructure, but also the quality of life for local citizens.
8

In recent years, North Carolina has suffered from the impacts of the national economic
decline. Labor statistics for September, 2012, indicated that North Carolina's
unemployment rate was 9.6 %. This rate is 1.6% higher than the national average. With
the current state of the North Carolina economy, the region needs a solid employer who
can provide a substantial number of quality jobs.
Today, Ashley pays wages and benefits of more than $423,814,000 per year and
provides health insurance, retirement benefits, life insurance, and tuition reimbursement
as part of its fringe benefits package offered to its employees. A conservative estimate
is that these fringe benefits amount to $8,000 per year in addition to an employee's
regular pay, representing a hidden paycheck. Ashley invests in its employees' health by
paying more than $16 million per year in health insurance premiums. Ashley pays a
minimum of 73% of a full-time employee's health insurance premiums. Ashley also
offers dental insurance ($2.25 /week single coverage; $6.75 /week family); life insurance
coverage ($20,000 for hourly manufacturing employees; $75,000 for hourly office
employees; and double annual salary for salaried employees), with the option for
employees to purchase additional insurance; disability insurance coverage; vision
insurance; and a 401k profit - sharing plan (the employee can contribute up to 75% of the
employee's wages on a pre-tax basis; while there is no guarantee, the annual company
contribution has historically been about 4% of the employee's wages). Ashley is an
employer that is conscious of employees' workplace safety. In 2011, Ashley provided
incentives to its employees though its Safety Bonus Program, rewarding employees for
safety innovations. In 2011, these incentives totaled more than $340,360. As an
employer that is also conscious of a family's demands on parents' time, Ashley
instituted flexible work schedules for its employees several years ago.
Ashley also supports the state and regional economies by paying more than
$59,409,000 per year in state sales taxes, property taxes, and gas and road taxes and
license fees, paying more than $11,721,000 for utility service, and paying $292,693,781
per year to its regional suppliers. These payments to suppliers in turn generate
additional income tax revenues for state and local governments, and bolster the local
and regional economies where these facilities are located.
IV. NEEDS
To identify its facility needs, Ashley has predicted the future of the furniture industry in
general and what Ashley must do to remain competitive in the furniture industry. Two
phrases describe the future of the furniture industry: increased competition and
changing technology. The competition has become even more intense in recent years
with increased importing of furniture from mainland China, where manufacturers are
adept at incorporating technology changes. To compete effectively with low -cost
producers who have lower overhead costs, domestic manufacturers such as Ashley must
have better production and distribution systems. Improving efficiency and eliminating
9

wasteful product damage depends on improving the design of the facility to eliminate
unnecessary handling to allow domestic manufacturers to compete effectively.
Ashley's North Carolina facility starts at a disadvantage in this competition because the
current facility cannot be operated efficiently. Its 32- foot -high ceilings are too low to
allow for efficient operation as a finished goods warehouse, which require higher
stacking of goods to maximize the advantage of new -age forklifts that can "pick"
product at various levels. As noted above, small retailers' inability to carry large
inventories of product has led to manufacturers carrying larger inventories to fill these
retailers' orders. As a result, Ashley's warehouses must be taller to store more product
efficiently.
Raw material and finished goods markets have become worldwide. In this global
marketplace, companies that can realize economies of scale will be able to offer more
competitive prices and will survive. Consumers are likely to become even more price -
conscious in this competitive environment, particularly because high -end producers
have failed to respond to their product preferences. Consumers also want "hassle -free"
products (i.e., products without defects), causing manufacturers to place more emphasis
on quality control.
Over the last two (2) or more decades, Ashley has been one of the fastest growing
companies in the furniture industry, with an average'annual growth rate of about
21.28 %. Ashley expects it will continue to grow at about 15% per year. To achieve
this impressive rate of growth amidst increased competition, Ashley must develop
better products to respond to consumers' demands, improve its manufacturing and
distribution systems, and operate more efficiently.
One example of Ashley's attempts to respond to consumers' demands is reflected in the
development of the Ashley Furniture HomeStore retail furniture stores. These stores
have been very popular because they seek to be the customers' total furniture supplier,
offering not only an entire line of household furniture, but also accessories and fixtures.
Ashley's "HomeStore" concept, which offers a comprehensive array of household
furniture products to the consumer, complements Ashley's distribution system, which
allows it to deliver products to Ashley's "HomeStore" consumers in a timely manner to
meet their needs.
Ashley has developed one of the most impressive distribution systems in the furniture
industry. Because of the increasing average age of Ashley's truck drivers, this
distribution system increasingly depends on the cost - effectiveness of rail transport.
Efficiencies associated with continued growth are directly related to the manufacturing
and distribution facilities having ready access to rail facilities. To operate efficiently,
Ashley's facilities must have immediate access to rail facilities.
Ashley has also developed an electronic data interchange (EDI) system to communicate
10

f with customers electronically and allow "paperless" transactions. Ashley expects that
i by automating customer service it will improve the accuracy of orders entered into its
system, speed product delivery, and improve damage correction. While EDI will help
Ashley operate more efficiently, it will not eliminate the substantial volume of
telephone calls Ashley receives each day because some aspects of furniture
manufacturing cannot be handled effectively electronically. In fact, while other
companies in the U.S. have moved their customer service departments offshore, Ashley
has dramatically expanded its customer service in its U.S. facilities. As with the rest of
Ashley's business, Ashley expects that its customer service department will continue to
grow. Ashley also expects its sales to grow as a result of its foray into the market of
online sales. While special qualities associated with furniture make online sales
dramatically different from traditional sales methods, Ashley sees a real opportunity for
growth in this market area.
Ashley is constantly trying to improve production techniques, equipment, and plant
layout, striving for optimum production efficiency at the lowest possible cost. Its
record of growth over the past few decades shows that it knows how to achieve these
objectives. But because Ashley's major markets are located on the East and West
coasts and in the South, it must control its production and distribution costs to remain
competitive. If Ashley is to survive in this increasingly competitive market, it must
expand its North Carolina facility in a manner that will allow it to operate in the most
cost-effective manner, both now and in the near future.
A. FAci LITY
1. Office Space
Ashley's manufacturing experience has taught it that as any business grows, its sales,
management and human resources staffs naturally also grow. Ashley expects its
business to grow at an annual rate of about 15 %. Ashley expects that it will need to add
about 110 management staff people to accommodate its proposed expansion of the
Advance, North Carolina, facility. It will locate office space for these new office
personnel within its expanded facilities. To operate effectively and efficiently these
management people must be located near the manufacturing and production areas with
which they work, preferably in a centralized location.
2. Employee Parking
As Ashley's labor force continues to grow, it will need additional parking space for its
employees. Ashley currently has 221 employee parking spaces near its Advance, North
Carolina, facility. Ashley estimates that it will need approximately 1,800 more
employee parking spaces if it is able to expand the Advance facility to make it operate
efficiently. It is important that the employee parking be near the employee's work area.
11

Parking a greater distance from the work area increases the amount of time for the
employees to travel to work. Ashley also understands that the parking area must be
centralized. Dispersed parking areas increase security costs, increase passenger vehicle
traffic in loading areas, creating an unnecessary risk of pedestrian - vehicle collisions,
and increasing the risk of vehicle collisions, and reduce the efficiency of the truck,
trailer, and container movements within the facility.
B. PRODUCTION
1. Production Space
Ashley expects that its production, labor force and sales will continue to grow and
expand. Greater production requires greater production capacity. The flow of parts
through Ashley's production facilities has historically been a key factor in Ashley
achieving its goal of cost- efficient production. Ashley's experience shows that a linear
flow of material is vital to operating an efficient production and distribution facility. A
non - linear flow of materials and goods increases product handling, employee time to
move product, risk of collisions around comers and separation walls, and the risk of
product damage, employee injuries, and costs. To avoid these inefficiencies, Ashley
emphasizes linear flow of products in the design of its facilities.
Rail shipping is the most economical form of transportation and allows Ashley to
restrain the cost of its largest raw material: wood. Economically efficient rail delivery
requires that the building which receives shipments be located near a railroad track. For
the North Carolina facility, this fact will require extending rail service to the facility at
the most optimal location for receiving raw materials via intermodal containers. As the
Norfolk Southern Railroad's closest track to the facility is located Southeast of the
property, rail service must enter the site in the Southeast comer to minimize the cost of
the extension. The nature of these containers, which only open at one end, means that
the location of the rail cannot be immediately adjacent to the loading docks. Rather, the
containers must be unloaded, and then moved to the loading dock so that the end of the
container which can be opened is nearest the loading dock. Fortunately, the facility has
existing rail beds where spur tracks were formerly located that will enable rail service to
be extended to the South and North ends of the property.
Ashley plans to have raw materials delivered to the Southeast portion of the facility. It
also plans to store finished goods in the westerly portion of the facility. (The storage
sheds located North of the existing facility also will be used for lumber drying and
storage of other raw materials, and for finished goods storage, but only for longer term
overflow storage of finished goods.) While this configuration is not optimal, because
the storage sheds do not allow for linear flow of raw materials to the production area, it
is the best configuration given the existing conditions at the facility.
12

Ashley also intends to introduce case goods production to the facility. Ashley
employees will stack laminated boards for the sawing department in thei lumber- drying
sheds at the northeast end of the facility. Employees working in the sawing department
to be located in some of the storage sheds will cut the boards to specified sizes for
component parts. From the sawing department, the parts will be distriWted to one of
many sub - processing departments, such as mitering, drilling, edge finishing, or routing,
where the fabricating process will then be completed.
Employees will move the completed parts to the staging area where the parts are stored
until Ashley receives an order requiring these parts. The staging area is a portion of the
facility where fabricated parts are held or stored until the assembly lines need the parts
to assemble the finished product. It is critical to have sufficient space in this staging
area, to allow planning and staging subsequent assembly jobs to keep the assembly lines
working efficiently. If parts cannot be found or if there is a delay in moving the parts,
the entire assembly line may shut down. Assembly line supervisors in Ashley's other
facilities try to minimize this disruption by scheduling breaks and team meetings during
these intervals, but the problem is a constant challenge. If adequate space is available
to store parts for three or four future assembly jobs, much of the wasted time can be
eliminated.
In its upholstered and case goods assembly lines in other facilities, Ashley estimates
that employees spend 35,434 hours per year waiting for parts and that this production
interruption costs the company more than $6,357,848 in gross sales, and costs the
employees more than $211,893 in lost "piece- rate" incentive pay each year.
These estimates do not reflect the delays' impact on employee morale. Assembly
employees are paid a "piece -rate" bonus, which means their rate of pay improves as
they produce more quality products. With the piece -rate bonus, assembly employees'
pay averages $16.34 per hour, or about 140% of their base rate of pay. When assembly
employees are waiting for parts and not assembling products, they are paid at their base
rate, which means that this inability to store parts in the staging area directly affects
these employees' pay checks. This problem frustrates many assembly employees, who
ultimately leave the company. Ashley estimates that it loses more than 473 experienced
employees per year from the assembly area. Because the cost to train a new employee
is about $7,845, Ashley estimates that production interruptions caused by a lack of
storage space in the staging area cost Ashley more than $3,711,413 per year to train
new employees, in addition to the employees' $211,893 per year in lost incentive pay.
Reducing the total amount of handling for each unit in the production process saves
large amounts of time and money. The savings are realized in three ways: less time to
shuttle parts and finished goods, lower equipment costs associated with moving parts
and finished goods, and reduced product damage and employee injuries. Raw material
and finished product handling have direct impacts on quality control. Quality control is
13

4 important to Ashley. From 2002 to 2011, Ashley reduced its quality costs' from 1.96%
of net sales to 1.10 %. Even with this improvement, Ashley estimates that it incurred
more than $30,884,000 in quality - related costs in 2011. Reducing the handling of raw
materials and finished products decreases product damage and waste. In addition,
reducing product movement improves employee safety.
Technological advances affect the furniture industry by reducing quality control costs.
An example of these advances is the increased emphasis on automated conveyor
systems to move product through the production area. Efficient use of conveyor
systems mandates a linear production flow. Any other production flow reduces
operational efficiencies by increasing employees' time in moving product and
increasing product damage resulting from that movement. Therefore to achieve the
project purpose of developing a state -of -the -art, operationally efficient configuration,
linear flow of product is essential.
Ashley will need to add about 300,000 square feet of production space and convert
about 400,000 square feet of current warehouse space to production to make the North
Carolina facility operate efficiently.
2. Warehouse Space and Location
As Ashley's production, labor force and sales continue to grow and expand, so does
Ashley's need for inventory space.
Ashley purchased the North Carolina facility to establish a production and distribution
facility closer to its major markets on the East coast. Shipping products over a distance
adds to Ashley's product cost, affecting Ashley's competitive posture and necessitating
increased efficiency in loading Ashley's trailers and containers. To realize these
efficiencies, Ashley must have sufficient loading docks to configure each load to fill a
variety of customers' demands in the order in which the products will be delivered to
those customers. Ashley's objective is to allow its customers to engage in "one -stop
shopping" by customizing each load with a variety of Ashley's products to meet each
customer's individual order. Because each of Ashley's trailers makes an average of nine
deliveries on each trip, it is imperative that the trailer's load be configured to allow
delivery of each customer's individualized order in the sequence in which the deliveries
will be made. A centralized warehouse complex that stores all of Ashley's products
1 Quality Costs represent the sum of costs associated with Quality Credits, Quality Returns, Replacement
Parts Orders, and Warehouse Damages. Quality Credits are credits given to customers who accept items
with quality issues for a reduced price. Quality Returns are cost incurred when customer refuses to accept
items with quality issues and full credit is given. Replacement Part costs are parts and shipping costs to
supply customers with parts to repair items with quality issues. Warehouse Damages are costs incurred
when items with quality issues are found within Ashley's warehouse.
14

and has a sufficient numbertof loading docks is crucial to accomplishing this objective.
To attempt to .load trailers in this manner with products stored at different warehouses
would prevent Ashley from achieving the economic efficiencies it must have to
compete in the marketplace.i In addition, multiple warehouses multiply overhead costs
such as insurance, security, transportation, utilities, and facility improvements. A
multiple- warehouse configuration also exponentially increases the likelihood of product
being damaged due to the additional handling required to configure loads of outgoing
furniture in an optimal fashion.
Maintaining a centralized warehouse complex is an economic necessity to allow Ashley
to remain competitive in the world -wide furniture market. It facilitates customized
truckloads, reduces overhead and labor costs, reduces employee injuries, reduces
damage to raw materials and finished goods, and provides greater product security.
Ashley estimates that its product - handling "quality" costs are about $3.04 per unit.
"Quality costs" include products returned because of defects, shortages in shipments,
damaged product, and quality credits. By reducing product handling and emphasizing
its Continuous Quality Improvement program, Ashley has significantly reduced its
quality costs. Ashley can reduce its quality costs by fiuther reducing the handling of
products through a centralized warehouse that is able to take advantage of technological
advances in product handling and equipment that reduce handling. Increased handling
adds to the cost of the product, but not to the value of the product to the customer.
One of Ashley's strongest selling points is its ability to deliver a customized load of
furniture within a week to a customer virtually anywhere in the U.S. or Canada. This
delivery schedule allows customers to avoid carrying large inventories or redistributing
the furniture within their own chain of stores. Ashley allows a customer to pick any
product (casegoods, upholstery, top -of -bed products, and accessories) in any quantity it
chooses. Ashley can deliver up to fourteen (14) different product lines in one delivery.
Ashley is one of the few manufacturers that provides this service. Ashley's competitors
generally ship a trailer loaded with only one product. To achieve a relatively short
delivery time, Ashley must have these items in stock for deliveries at the customer's
convenience. This approach allows Ashley's customers to reduce their overhead costs
and pass on savings to the consumer. Reducing customers' overhead costs associated
with inventory also reduces their financing expenses. Again, Ashley's goal is to provide
the best total value to the customer, and this delivery network saves the customer
money, which strengthens Ashley's competitive posture and strengthens the regional
employment base.
The only way to ship product efficiently to customers under these circumstances is to
have all of the products located in the same warehouse complex to facilitate loading
complete, varied shipments on one truck. More than half of Ashley's shipments consist
of mixed- product loads and multiple deliveries for various customers. If a truck must
make multiple deliveries on one trip, products must be loaded in the proper sequence to
15

minimize product handling at delivery. In addition, studies have shown that an optimal
configuration for a warehouse requires minimizing the number of turns a forklift must
make and reducing the distance the forklifts must travel between the product locations
and the dock. The greater the number of turns and the greater distance the forklift must
travel, the less efficient the warehouse configuration is. Ashley's experience has shown
that a large, square warehouse is least efficient while a narrow, rectangular warehouse
is most efficient. Even less efficient than a large, square warehouse is having multiple
warehouse locations from which to load outgoing product. If Ashley were to load
trucks from multiple warehouse locations, the furniture would need to be loaded,
moved to a second warehouse, unloaded, then organized and reloaded. Alternatively,
the trucks and trailers would need to be moved an exponentially greater number of
times. This would cause tremendous added costs in labor, equipment, and product
damage due to increased handling of the furniture. These added costs would occur
regardless of the second warehouse being located within 5 miles or 50 miles of the
main facility because the damage results from the handling of the product, not from the
transportation of it.
An ideal configuration would be one, centralized warehouse, as discussed above, but
with proximate access to rail to take advantage of this cost - effective mode of transport.
As the average age of Ashley's drivers continues to increase, Ashley is finding that it
must resort to rail transport more and more as part of its delivery system. To meet its
requirements for operational efficiency at the North Carolina facility, Ashley proposes
to add warehouse space directly to the West of the existing facility. Ashley plans to
utilize the western portion of its expanded North Carolina facility for its daily
warehouse functions, while using the existing storage sheds located North of the facility
for overflow storage of products that are not needed as regularly. Existing rail beds at
the North Carolina site offer such rail access as a viable option there. These rail beds
will allow Ashley to construct rail spurs providing rail access on the South side of the
property, adjacent to the production and warehouse facility, and on the North side of the
property, near the storage sheds.
In approaching this analysis, it must be stressed that Ashley has considered various
alternative configurations for meeting this need for warehouse space. Ashley has
considered expanding the existing facility to the North, East, South, and West.
Ashley's most recent proposal should not be viewed or considered in isolation. Ashley
has analyzed each of these alternative configurations in terms of infrastructure and
construction costs and in terms of changes in operational efficiencies. Hence, Ashley's
proposal should be viewed as another in a line of alternative proposals to minimize the
project's impact on wetlands, while fulfilling the project's overall purpose of creating a
state -of -the -art furniture manufacturing facility that can compete in the global
marketplace.
Ashley estimates that it will need about 2.0 million square feet of additional warehouse
16

space in its North Carolina facility for finished products.
C. TRANSPORTATION
As indicated above, Ashley's expanding volume of business increases its need for
additional transportation facilities.
1. Trailer and Container Storage
Even though Ashley has a large number of trailers on the road at any given time, it is
obvious that the size of Ashley's fleet requires a large area simply to park and maneuver
its trailers and containers. As Ashley's business grows, its parking needs grow
concomitantly. When fully operational, Ashley expects to have at least 2,400 trailers
and intermodal containers at its North Carolina facility, as well as a complement of
semi -truck tractors. Trailers and containers are about 53 feet long and 8%Z feet wide. A
tractor is about 20 feet long and 8% feet wide. The machinery requires substantial
additional space simply to maneuver it in and out of parking spaces and loading docks.
Consequently, the space required to accommodate such a vast fleet is considerable.
Ashley is developing a large supply of intermodal storage containers and has invested
substantial amounts of money in intermodal container lift machines. (Intermodal
containers are boxes about the size of a semi -truck trailer that can be transported on a
trailer or on a railroad flatbed car. Intermodal containers are carried double- stacked on
"5- pack" rail cars, with each railcar carrying ten (10) containers. As "5- pack" rail cars
are more than 305 -feet long, their size dictates the design of rail spurs and siding tracks
that will carry these rail cars.) To maximize its return on this investment, Ashley
frequently retrieves and delivers other manufacturers' containers.
While Ashley's North Carolina facility currently lacks rail access to the plant, beds for
former spur tracks are still in place on the property and installing rail spurs on these
beds can facilitate raw material delivery, shipping of finished goods, and the efficient
use of intermodal containers. Ashley can take advantage of the opportunities presented
by these improvements to develop a regional intermodal container storage yard, which
could serve not only Ashley but other area businesses as well.
To conserve space, Ashley has explored the possibility of stacking containers in levels
of three or more. In fact, Ashley acquired an intermodal container lift machine that can
stack containers three (3) high. The cost of the machine was $80,000. Ashley has
elected not to stack containers three (3) high, however, for two reasons. First, if
containers were stacked three (3) high and the machine broke, Ashley would have no
means of moving the containers in the stack without very substantial expense. Second,
without compacting the ground on which the containers are placed to support the
additional weight, the stack is not stable and presents a risk of falling, causing damage
17

to containers, products, equipment, and, most importantly, Ashley's employees.
Ashley is proposing to construct a container storage yard on the Eastern portion of the
North Carolina facility, the point nearest the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Using
containers is essential to the cost- effective movement of Ashley's products. With the
aging of the baby boom population and the lack of young truck drivers, using containers
is likely to become more critical. Shipping intermodal storage containers by rail
transport rather than over -the -road is more cost - effective because railroad cars have
higher weight limits than trucks and doing so avoids drayage charges in most instances.
In addition, rail transport reduces the traffic volume and damage that could be caused
by moving these containers on the highways. Obviously, container storage will require
additional space to move and maneuver the containers. Locating the container storage
yard at an off -site location would increase traffic, be costly and unsafe, and increase the
rate at which local streets and highways deteriorate.
The intermodal container storage yard can provide a loading area for intermodal
containers retrieved from other area businesses, and an unloading area for containers
which are delivered by rail for the area businesses. Using intermodal containers makes
shipping freight more cost - effective for these businesses, making them more
competitive. Making these regional businesses more competitive allows them to create
additional employment in the area. At a time when the economy in the Piedmont Triad
has been stagnant, at best, bolstering the regional economy would be a tremendous
boon for North Carolina. The storage yard also strengthens the Norfolk Southern
Railway as a railroad. Maximizing the use of intermodal containers will also reduce the
number of trucks hauling freight over the road. Consequently, this private asset will
yield substantial public benefits.
To expand its complement of intermodal containers and semi -truck tractor trailers to
gain efficiencies in shipping furniture products, and to accommodate additional
containers from other area businesses, Ashley estimates that it will need to construct a
container storage yard able to accommodate 200 intermodal containers at its North
Carolina facility.
2. Truck Loading and Parking.
Ashley anticipates that its transportation fleet will continue to grow as Ashley's
business grows. As mentioned above, Ashley expects to add 2,400 or more semi -truck
trailers or intermodal containers at its North Carolina facility in the next five years.
Ashley's current facility has 34 loading docks at its North Carolina facility. Even with
this sizeable number of loading docks, Ashley will need to move its trailers countless
times per day to load and reconfigure the merchandise to improve delivery.
Approximately 400 more truck loading docks are needed. These additional loading
docks would enable Ashley to load its trailers more efficiently, require less movement
18

of Ashley's trailers resulting in less cost and damage to Ashley's goods, and increase
Ashley's volume of shipments. These additional docks and the reduction in product .
handling will also allow Ashley to improve its production scheduling, which will in
turn improve employee satisfaction and Ashley's ability to respond to its customers'
needs.
Because of the anticipated growth in Ashley's supply of trailers and intermodal
containers, Ashley will need to obtain additional parking space for these units.
Moreover, some options for parking spaces will be lost by expanding Ashley's current
facility.
It has been suggested that one alternative for addressing Ashley's need for space to park
tractors and trailers is to create an off -site storage facility. Developing an off -site
facility runs counter to Ashley's objective of operating a centralized facility, one of the
principal reasons it purchased the Advance property. Ashley chose the Advance
location in part because it offered sufficient space to accommodate all of Ashley's
needs. Nevertheless, to develop an off -site location, Ashley would need to find a
suitable location and acquire it, and then make improvements, such as roads, parking
areas, security fences and gates, guardhouse (with attendant employee
accommodations), and communications equipment. If Ashley must develop an off -site
facility, it is unlikely it would find a suitable site or willing seller of less than 40 acres.
Ashley estimates that the cost of acquiring the property, developing the site, and
addressing stormwater management and security concerns could be as much as $20
million. An off -site location suffers from two principal and interrelated defects: cost
and logistics. In addition to the costs to acquire and develop an off -site location, an off -
site location increases Ashley's costs through additional mileage on vehicles, additional
wear - and -tear on vehicles, and employee costs in time needed to move the vehicles.
Ashley estimates the increased costs at $10.00 per mile per trip. This increased cost
would be counter - productive to the project's purpose, which is to develop a state -of-
the -art facility that can operate efficiently to compete in the world market during the
near term. Logistically, an off -site location may require greater communication and
coordination for servicing the vehicles. This cost would make Ashley's existing vehicle
maintenance facility less cost - effective. In addition, not all locations are suitable for the
off -site storage facility. The existing facility is located near a rural residential area that
provides area residents with a quiet, comfortable neighborhood. Increasing the number
of trips between the existing and an off -site facility and requiring trucks to enter and
exit the facility merely for the purpose of vehicle maintenance and loading product will
multiply the amount of traffic in the area, damaging the current tranquil setting in this
rustic area.
3. Rail Transportation
Because of Ashley's other facilities' distance from the major furniture markets, Ashley
19

has been forced to develop one of the largest shipping operations in the furniture r
industry. -Rail transport, whether by boxcar or intermodal container, is less expensive
than over - the -road shipping. (See Exhibit H.) Increases in gas prices have increased
this disparity. To take advantage of this cost - effective mode of transport, Ashley
proposes to construct one mile of spur track adjacent to its proposed container storage
Yards South and East of the existing facility to facilitate the loading and unloading of
intermodal containers.
4. Truck Maintenance
As Ashley's transportation fleet continues to grow, so does its vehicle maintenance
needs. One of the criteria Ashley established for its site search was the availability of a
vehicle maintenance facility. The North Carolina facility Ashley purchased came
complete with a vehicle maintenance facility. The facility covers 19,347 square feet.
Ashley plans to invest between $50,000 and $100,000 in updating and upgrading the
vehicle maintenance facility. After the advantages gained from purchasing an on -site
vehicle maintenance facility, it would be counter- productive for Ashley to develop an
off -site truck parking facility. Moreover, Ashley estimates that it would cost more than
$2.3 million to replace the existing vehicle maintenance facility at another location.
D. SUMMARY OF NEEDS
The furniture industry is dynamic. Changes in marketing techniques, technology,
consumer preferences, and government regulations affect that market and require
market participants to change. Like its competitors, Ashley must respond to these
market forces. Ashley is growing and expects to continue growing. Ashley's business
growth necessitates that it increase its parking, production capacity, warehouse space,
and transportation systems while continuing its cooperative efforts with state and local
governments. Ashley estimates that to make the Advance, North Carolina, facility
efficient to compete in the global marketplace, it will need to add:
Office space: 80,000 square feet
Employee parking: 2,000 spaces
Production space: 300,000 square feet
Warehouse space: 2.0 million square feet
Containers and trailers: 2,200
Trailer parking: 2,200 stalls
Container storage yard: 200 containers
Truck loading docks: 447
Rail siding track: 1.0 linear miles
V. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
20

This portion of the analysis will consider the strengths and weaknesses of various
alternatives, to meet Ashley's needs. Each alternative will be discussed in regard to how
that alternative affects each of Ashley's identified needs. As a number of the alternatives
propose to use an area adjacent to Ashley's existing facility, this analysis will discuss a
number of possible uses for each area and identify what Ashley considers the optimal use
for that area This plan will also attempt to identify any major direct environmental
consequences associated with these alternatives and discuss the practicality of each
alternative. Ashley personnel have conducted an extensive analysis of the operational
efficiencies of each alternative.
As they have done so, they have been mindful of the criteria for consideration of
alternatives under North Carolina law:
"A lack of practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that,
considering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration, or density of the
proposed activity and all alternative designs the basic project purpose cannot be
practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less
adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands."
15A N.C.A.C. 2H.0506(f). The purpose of this project is to develop a state -of -the -art
furniture manufacturing and distribution facility that will be able to incorporate future
improvements in technology to be able to compete in the global marketplace for many
years to come. Ashley's experience shows the facilities that are not designed in an
optional manner will not be able to compete effectively into the future. If the facility
cannot compete effectively into the future, it is not worth the investment that will be
needed to construct such a facility.
A. ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED
1. Maintain facility in current condition with no expansion (Option #1)
It has been suggested that Ashley should maintain its facility in its current condition,
without any expansion. While Ashley intends to begin furniture assembly operations in the
existing facility in the very near term as a way of reducing the cost associated with the
transition to a cost - effective, state -of- the -art facility, it recognizes that the facility cannot be
operated in its current condition during the long term.
Ashley purchased the existing facility in part due to its available space for expansion.
Ashley knew that the existing facility was not adequate to address Ashley's need for a
production and distribution facility near the East coast to satisfy customer demand there.
The building is too small to meet Ashley's production and warehouse needs. It lacks rail
access. Ashley plans to use existing buildings on the site for drying lumber and storing
limited types of raw materials and finished goods. Nevertheless, they are not contiguous
21

to the main building and suffer from the economic, costs that result from lack of
contiguity. The current facility has insufficient truck and trailer storage areas.
The proposed 2.3 million square foot addition world allow Ashley to expand and
reconfigure its manufacturing, warehouse and distribution operations. If the expansion is
not allowed, the facility will be too inefficient to operate efficiently, when compared to
the competition (and to Ashley's facilities elsewhere), with the inevitable result.
Therefore, this alternative will not be considered further for the purposes of this practical
alternatives analysis.
2. Add second story to existing facility (Option #2)
One alternative that has been suggested to satisfy Ashley's need for additional space is to
add a second story to a portion of the existing facility.
One problem with this alternative is that the existing building was not designed to support
a second story. The footings and walls in the existing building are not designed to carry
the additional weight of a second story. This alternative would require that the footings,
walls, beams, ceilings, and roof be strengthened or changed completely. The cost of these
modifications makes this alternative impractical. A second -story addition may also be
impractical if the soils used to fill the area for the existing facility were not suited to
support the additional weight. Moreover, water pressure drops at a rate of 2.3 pounds -
per- square-inch for each foot of additional elevation. Adding a second story in some
instances will mean that there is insufficient water volumes and pressure at the higher
elevation to provide adequate fire protection and, hence, insurance coverage.
This alternative has been suggested to meet Ashley's need for additional production or
warehouse space. In addition to the structural limitations described above, a problem
with this alternative is that Ashley's machines are subject to certain placement and weight
restrictions. Because of these restrictions, most of Ashley's machinery could not be
placed on the second level. The second story would also have limited utility for raw
materials or finished goods storage because of the sheer weight of these items and the
rack shelving needed to organize the materials and finished goods.
Other problems associated with this alternative include increased noise levels in the
facility which would affect the employees' health, a "claustrophobic" atmosphere on both
levels, and inefficient movement of products and materials. Typically, manufacturing
facilities avoid a two -story configuration because the disruption in product flow makes
this design more costly and less efficient to operate. The need to move materials or
products between floors would necessitate adding equipment to move those items.
Because of the increased movement of product between floors, a second story would
affect employee safety.
22

Adding a second story would be more expensive than other alternatives not only because
of the structural improvements for the ground floor, but also because of the need to install
elevators or other devices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Based on the foregoing analysis, this alternative will not be considered further for the
purposes of this practical alternatives analysis.
3. Move some operations to alternative location off of property (Option 03)
One alternative which has been suggested to satisfy Ashley's need for additional space is
to open a new facility at an offsite location. This facility could be used for office,
warehouse, production space, or tractor and trailer storage.
Ashley has in the past experienced problems when Ashley's management staff was
dispersed. In addition to office space, space is needed for training rooms for new
employees, first aid stations, restrooms, and the employees' cafeterias. Opening an office
at some other location outside of Advance would not only cause logistical problems, but
also disrupt employees' lives and cause Ashley great additional expense in
communications, coordination, and transportation. The management personnel who will
work at the Advance facility are specifically for management of that facility and not for
other facilities or general business operations,, such as customer service. Therefore, those
personnel must be on -site at the facility to perform those management tasks and an off -
site location will not be considered further for office space.
Ashley has invested millions of dollars in its production equipment. The key to using this
equipment in a cost - effective manner is to ensure that these assets are used to their full
capacity. By doing this, Ashley conserves building space and overhead costs since it does
not have idle machinery taking up floor space. By having a centralized, regional
manufacturing facility, Ashley maximizes its use of its manufacturing equipment,
avoiding the duplication caused by multiple manufacturing or warehouse sites. This
increases Ashley's return on investment from its production equipment, which is a
savings in overhead costs which can be passed on to the customer. Locating production
at more than one location would obviate these savings, making Ashley's product less
competitive and Ashley's ability to compete less certain. Therefore, this alternative will
not be considered further for a production facility.
Any off -site warehouse location causes additional product handling. With the increased
product handling, Ashley experiences greater product damage because furniture is not
only bulky, but fragile, and additional handling invariably causes more product damage.
This product damage, which results from product handling and not from transportation,
would occur regardless if the offsite facility is five (5) or 50 miles from the main facility.
Ashley has reduced its quality control costs significantly by reducing the handling of raw
23

materials and finished goods. Thus, expanding warehousing capacity at the existing
facility and reducing product handling will reduce Ashley's quality control costs and
strengthen Ashley's competitiveness.
There are, of course, additional costs to storing finished products in a warehouse at a
different location than the manufacturing facility. The arrangement would increase the
labor costs associated with moving products from one location to another. At an average
cost of $10.00 per mile per trip, Ashley's added transportation expenses would be
significant, but difficult to estimate without specifying a distance and size for the off -site
warehouse.
The arrangement also increases the deterioration of Ashley's transportation fleet. Ashley
estimates that similar off -site warehouses in the past have cost Ashley a substantial
amount of money each year in equipment replacement costs. These costs, of course, do
not include the costs to local governments as a result of the deterioration of streets,
highways, and bridges between the main facility and the off -site warehouse.
In addition, transporting the finished goods limits Ashley's ability to respond to changes
in customers' orders and configure loads to maximize cost- effectiveness and increases
product damage.
If this alternative were the only option available, Ashley would be forced to expand one
of its other existing facilities to address its needs. An off -site warehouse is not a
preferred alternative because it is not as cost - effective as an on -site warehouse would be
and therefore does not satisfy the project purpose of a long -term solution.
Any off -site location must have at least three resources to be practical: reasonable access
to rail for delivering raw materials or loading finished products, adequate water supply
and pressure to satisfy Ashley's fire protection needs for its insurance coverage, and
sewer service. These requirements make undeveloped areas, such as areas outside of a
city's corporate limits, impractical. The off -site location must be available at a
reasonable cost for acquisition and development. The off -site location also must be
reasonably accessible from and to the main facility.
As noted above, to develop an off -site location for tractors and trailers, Ashley would
need to find a suitable location and acquire it, and then make improvements, such as
roads, parking areas, security fences and gates, guardhouse (with attendant employee
accommodations), lighting, and communications equipment. An off -site location suffers
from two principal and interrelated defects: cost and logistics. In addition to the costs to
acquire and develop an off -site location, an off -site location increases Ashley's costs
through additional mileage on vehicles, additional wear - and -tear on vehicles, and
employee costs in time needed to move the vehicles. Ashley estimates the increased costs
at $10.00 per mile per trip. This increased cost would be counter- productive to the
24

project's purpose, which is to make the facility ido a state -of -the -art cost - efficient
facility.. Logistically, an off-site location will require greater communication and
coordination for servicing the vehicles. In addition, not all locations are suitable for the
off-site storage facility.
An off -site location has been suggested for employee parking. It should be noted that
Ashley does not intend to devote a large amount of space to employee parking.
Therefore, this alternative would not make sufficient space available for Ashley's other
needs. Then, too, Ashley would likely need to acquire parking space some distance from
the Advance factory and transport employees to the factory. This arrangement would
necessitate that Ashley purchase or lease the off -site parking area and provide employees'
transportation to the factory, adding to Ashley's long -term overhead costs and the cost of
the proposed project. Moreover, using an off -site parking area will disrupt employees'
schedules and may affect employee morale since they would not be paid for the additional
time needed to get from the parking area to the factory.
Therefore, this alternative will not be considered further.
4. Demolish the existing building and rebuild on an upland site on the property.
(Option #4)
One alternative that has been suggested to address Ashley's needs is to demolish the
existing facility and build a new facility (or portions of it) on an upland site on the
property. This alternative would significantly add to the cost of the proposed project, in
terms of lost investment, demolition costs, the cost of site preparation of the alternative
site, the cost of utility extensions to the new facility location, and the cost of lost
production from Ashley's intended operation of the existing facility during the
construction of the proposed addition. Even if Ashley could find someone to demolish
portions of the facility in exchange for the salvageable material, Ashley estimates it will
cost at least $53 per square foot to rebuild the space provided by the existing lumber -
drying and storage sheds, and more to replace the vehicle maintenance facility. This
alternative also would be limited by availability of public road frontage and possible
configurations for the extension of rail service to the facility. Moreover, this alternative
has an adverse impact on the environment in the particulate matter created by demolition
and finding a suitable location for the disposal of materials from the demolished facility.
Therefore, this alternative will not be discussed further except as to the demolition of
separate storage sheds and other buildings as part of the alternatives that would require
that demolition.
5. Use area south of existing facility (Option #5)
One alternative that has been suggested to address Ashley's needs is to use the area to the
25

South of the existing facility. Ashley has considered two (2) alternative configurations
for an expansion in this direction: expanding by "squaring off' the existing building and
extending it directly to the South (see Drawing S -1) and expanding by "squaring off" the
existing building and adding a rectangular portion aligned East and West and parallel to
the existing facility (see Drawing S -2).
a. Expand directly to the South (Drawing S -1)
While this alternative does reduce the number of wetland acres affected by the expansion,
the wetland acres involved are of a higher quality than the wetland acres that would be
affected by alternative expansion options. This alternative involves extending the facility
a significant distance to the South, thus causing greater encroachments into this wetland
area. In addition, this alternative would cause significantly greater impact to stream
channels. Specifically, this alternative would require the filling of 2.0 acres of wetland
and disturb 4,627 linear feet of stream. Because of the low terrain in which this
expansion would be constructed, significantly greater fill would be needed to construct
the expansion. In addition, a stormwater management structure for the facility that was
constructed in this area about four (4) decades ago would need to be relocated to a
different portion of the property for this alternative to be practical. An alternative
location for the stormwater management area for the facility would most likely be in one
of the adjacent wetland areas, thus resulting in greater wetland impacts.
From a manufacturing and operational standpoint, this alternative does offer some
significant advantages. First, it does not require the demolition of any existing buildings
so that it will provide sufficient capacity for Ashley's operations when the expansion is
complete. Second, this alternative would permit Ashley to operate the existing facility
during the interim, making the project more feasible from a financial perspective. Third,
it facilitates consolidation of employee parking closer to the employees' work areas. This
fact means that there would be fewer passenger vehicles being driven through the loading
yard, allowing trucks operating in the yard to be operated more efficiently and more
safely, and would require less time for people to get from their parking spot to their work
areas. Finally, it provides the number of loading docks for the warehouse that Ashley's
studies have indicated are needed to operate the warehouse efficiently.
Nevertheless, there are drawbacks to this option. As noted above, this alternative would
cause a much larger footprint in a higher quality wetland area and would require
relocation and filling of a significant portion of a stream. (In fact, this alternative would
cause the elimination of 15 times as much of the stream (nearly an entire mile) when
compared to the preferred alternative.) To minimize the number of wetland acres
affected, trailer parking near the finished goods storage area would be reduced, making it
less efficient from an operational perspective. Due to the limited space available without
greater incursions into wetlands, the narrow drive lanes around the expanded facility
create traffic bottlenecks that reduce efficiency in loading and moving outgoing product,
26

thus resulting in increased labor time, and in a greater risk for product damage and
vehicle collisions. One option for locating more trailer parking closer to the finished
goods storage area could be to realign the production flow to have it flow from the South
to the North and to the existing facility. With limited access to public streets, this
configuration would require more employees to park at the Southern end of the property,
meaning that passenger vehicles would need to drive through the loading yard, making
the loading of trailers and containers less efficient. The design of the existing facility also
works against a South -to -North product flow alignment because of the lower ceilings in
the existing facility, this area is not practical for finished goods storage. Ashley has
designed its facilities for optimal efficiency and finds that finished goods storage areas
must be 40 feet high or higher to allow for stacking and retrieving product. This
restriction means that the building footprint would need to be expanded even more to
provide sufficient storage capacity. Areas on the site for such additional expansion area
would likely result in greater incursions in wetlands. Therefore, product flow in the
expanded facility must be from North to South. Moreover, because the rail spur to serve
the facility would now be limited to the Easterly portion of the property, a North -to -South
production flow is the only practical configuration to take advantage of the most cost -
effective mode for shipping finished goods.
b. Adding East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility (Drawing S -2)
The second alternative configuration described above would actually impact about the
same number of wetland acres as impacted under the preferred alternative. In addition,
because the building footprint to the South would be greater than the footprint from
constructing a rail spur to the South of the building in the preferred alternative, this
alternative would require the filling of 3.90 acres. This alternative would also involve a
greater expansion into a low-lying area, requiring greater fill for the expansion and having
greater impact on 1,199 linear feet of higher quality stream channel (compared to 316
linear feet in the preferred alternative).
At first glance, this alternative is somewhat attractive from a manufacturing and
operational vantage point. It allows for orderly product flow from the raw material and
production areas to the finished goods storage area, it provides the capacity Ashley will
need to operate the facility efficiently without requiring the destruction of existing
buildings, it includes the number of loading docks Ashley believes will be needed to
operate the warehouse efficiently, and it allows the existing facility to be operated during
construction to make the project more feasible.
While this alternative does include sufficient areas near enough to the facility to be
suitable for employee parking, the available parking areas are somewhat limited and
would mean that employee parking spaces would be dispersed throughout the property.
Dispersal of employee parking increases demands on facility security, interferes with
movement of trucks and containers around the facility, affects employee morale due to
27

the greater distance to travel to the work area, and increases the risk of collisions with
employee vehicles, jeopardizing employee safety.
From an operational perspective, though, this configuration is less efficient than the
preferred alternative or the alternative of expanding directly to the South. This loss of
efficiency is due primarily to the L- shaped nature of the expanded facility. As discussed
previously, Ashley's experience shows that a linear product flow is the most efficient
configuration. With the "bend" in the flow of an L- shaped configuration, it creates a
more limited drive lane for moving product because of the presence of a fire wall, a blind
spot (resulting in more time to move product), and a greater risk of product damage and
employee injury. Moreover, a non - linear flow will make operation of conveyor systems
to move product less efficient and less adaptable to future changes, which is contrary to
the project's purpose.
Because this alternative would obviate space available to the South of the facility for a
rail spur, the rail spur would be restricted to the easterly portion of the property. This
area would only be adjacent to a small portion of the facility and, as a result, this cost -
effective mode of transport would not be as useful to the facility.
Because of the loss of operational efficiencies and the greater impacts to higher quality
streams, neither of these alternatives will be considered further for possible development.
6. Use area north of existing facility (Option #6)
One alternative that has been suggested to address Ashley's needs is to use the area to the
North of the existing facility. Ashley has considered two (2) configurations for an
expansion in this direction: "squaring off' the existing facility and adding 2 million
square feet in East -West rectangular form and parallel to the existing facility (see
Drawing N -1) and "squaring off' the existing facility and adding a 2 million square foot
L- shaped addition to the North (see Drawing N -2).
a. Add East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility (Drawing N -1)
The principal advantage of this alternative is that it minimizes impacts to wetlands and
stream channels, while providing sufficient area for Ashley's proposed building
expansion. This alternative would still affect 0.19 acres of wetlands, but would not affect
any portion of a stream. It should be noted that part of the reduction in the wetland
acreage affected is due to the fact that locating the rail spur to the South of the facility
would no longer be practical because it would then only be adjacent to the production
area of the facility. While it may be possible to install a rail spur around the North end of
the building adjacent to the finished goods warehouse, this area has been designated for
trailer parking and those trailers would need to be relocated to another area on the
28

property, most likely resulting in greater wetland impacts. Moreover, Ashley plans to use
lumber - drying and storage sheds to the North of the facility and would need to replace the
lost capacity from demolishing those buildings if the rail spur is constructed in this area.
Thus, the facility would be limited in its ability to take advantage of the cost - effective
transportation of intermodal containers. Another advantage is that this alternative also
allows for an existing stormwater management system to remain in its current location
and perform its stormwater management functions for the facility. Finally, the
configuration allows for somewhat more concentrated employee parking on the South
side of the facility, closer to the production area where most employees work.
This alternative suffers, however, from many disadvantages. Expanding in this direction
means that storage areas for the bulk of trailers would need to be located around the
North portion of the facility, where the lumber- drying and finished goods storage area
would be. Locating the expanded building and trailer storage to the North would require
the destruction of at least sixteen (16) existing lumber- drying and storage sheds that
Ashley intends to use. Destroying these sheds would mean a loss of about 699,000
square feet of usable buildings that Ashley purchased. Ashley estimates that it would cost
$38,461,060 to reconstruct this storage capacity it has already purchased. If the storage
capacity is reconstructed on other property, this approach becomes even more expensive.
If the storage capacity is reconstructed elsewhere on the property, it will likely cause the
filling of more wetland acres or impacts to more linear feet of streams. More
significantly, expansion in this direction would require the elimination of the 20,000 -
square- foot truck maintenance facility, which was one of the criteria Ashley had
established in Conducting its search for a suitable site. Replacing the truck maintenance
facility is estimated to cost up to $2.3 million. Ideally, Ashley would replace the lost
maintenance facility and storage space elsewhere on the property, but presumably in a
more environmentally sensitive area. The demolition of these buildings would also have
a negative impact on the environment, causing dust to be released into the air during
demolition and requiring disposal of the demolition materials.
Expanding the facility on the North side would require the elimination of almost all of the
existing loading docks during the construction phase. This fact means that Ashley would
not be able to begin operations in the existing facility but would need to wait for the
expansion to be completed before operations could begin, adding to the cost of this
alternative.
Because of the topography of the site, expanding to the North would significantly
increase the cost of design and construction of the building due to the need to excavate a
significant area for the building footprint and the truck and trailer parking for the
warehouse, and for stormwater management for the expanded facility. In addition, costs
would be significantly greater due to the need to relocate existing water, natural gas,
electrical, and coaxial cable connections located to the North of the building. The
relocation of these utilities would require greater cooperation and investment of time and
resources by the affected utility companies.
29

This alternative also suffers from significant drawbacks related to efficient product flow
through the facility. First, a number of lumber- drying and storage sheds would be
eliminated under this alternative. While Ashley had planned to use these sheds for raw
materials storage and drying, and for overflow storage of finished goods, the reduction in
the number of sheds will likely mean that Ashley will be limited to using the remaining
sheds for the more constant need, raw material storage. With the configuration of the
facility and the lower ceilings in the original building, the raw materials will enter the
production area at the southerly end of the building. This fact will mean that the raw
materials must be transported from the North end of the property to the South side of the
building, that more employee time will be needed to transport the materials through the
facility yard, disruptions in transporting the materials will cause greater interruptions to
production, and increased cost and lost efficiency in operating the facility. In addition,
Ashley's studies have lead it to conclude that optimal product flow must be linear to take
advantage of the use of conveyor systems, which reduce employees' time and injuries in
moving product and result in less product damage from handling. A northerly expansion,
though, would require an "S- curve" in the product flow as it moves from East to West in
the production area in the South half of the building and then from West to East in the
finished goods warehouse in the North portion of the building. The inefficiencies in this
product flow would be exacerbated under this alternative due to the requirement for
maintaining a fire wall between the two portions of the expanded facility. This feature
would restrict the space and traffic lanes for product to flow from the production area to
the warehouse area, causing congestion, delays, more time being required to move
product, and greater risk of collisions, product damage, and employee injuries. Finally,
expansion in this direction would restrict available areas for truck drive lanes. This
restriction would lead to delays in moving trucks throughout the facility yard and lead to
greater shuttling of trailers to load product in an optimal order. It would also reduce the
utility of the loading docks that could be added under this alternative.
Ashley estimates that this configuration would require constructing intermodal storage
southeast of the existing facility a distance from the finished goods storage. Therefore,
under this alternative, the facility would be more heavily dependent on truck
transportation. In that case, Ashley would need additional spaces for storage of trucks
and tractors and the only available location for this storage would be nearer the higher
quality wetlands at the South and West ends of the property.
Due to additional costs for design and construction and relocation of utilities, as well as
significant losses in production and distribution efficiencies, this alternative is not
practical in achieving the project purpose and will not be considered further.
b. Square addition to North of existing building (Drawing N -2)
As with the preceding alternative, the principal advantage of this alternative is that it
30

minimizes impacts to wetlands and streams, primarily by avoiding expanding toward the
higher quality wetlands and streams in the southerly portion of the property. This
alternative would only impact 0.13 acres of wetlands. - The reduction in the number of
wetland acres affected under this alternative is due primarily to the removal of a rail spur
to provide rail access on the South side of the building, which would no longer be
practical because it would then only be adjacent to the production area of the facility.
Relocating the rail spur to the North side of the building where the finished goods storage
also becomes impractical under this alternative because of the expanded building
footprint. Thus, the facility would be limited in its ability to take advantage of the cost -
effective transportation of intermodal containers. This alternative also allows for an
existing stormwater management system to remain in its current location and perform its
stormwater management functions for the facility. As with the other configuration for
expanding to the North, this configuration would consolidate employee parking near the
production area.
The principal disadvantages of this alternative are the loss of existing buildings on the
property. In all, twenty -two (22) of the existing lumber- drying storage sheds on the North
side of the property would need to be eliminated under this alternative. Those storage
sheds account for 1,174,042 square feet of existing storage space. For Ashley to make
full use of the property in the manner it intended when it purchased the property, this
storage space would need to be replaced elsewhere on the property, presumably in a more
environmentally sensitive area. Ashley estimates the cost of reconstructing this storage
capacity at $64,572,310 if it can be done on this property. It would cost more to construct
it on other property. In addition, particulate matter from demolition and the need to
dispose of materials from the demolished buildings could impact the local environment.
To configure this expansion and to meet Ashley's current trailer parking needs, trailer
parking areas would need to be established on the Eastern portion of the property near
Baltimore Road and to the South of the facility, nearer a wetland area. The easterly trailer
parking area would likely require relocating the access road to the facility and obviate the
safety advantages gained from the recent construction of a turn lane on Baltimore Road to
facilitate access to the property. In addition, locating trailer parking South of the facility,
at the greatest distance from the finished goods warehouse, would make it extremely
inefficient to use trailers in that lot for loading finished goods.
Constructing the expansion in the configuration contemplated under this alternative
would require substantial excavation to level a building site, adding significantly to the
cost of this alternative. Such massive excavation would also create stormwater
management issues. Ashley would expect to incur additional design costs for the design
of the stormwater management near the expanded facility, as well as increased
construction costs to implement that design. Moreover, utilities located in the area
intended for the proposed expansion, such as existing water, natural gas, electrical, and
coaxial cable connections, would need to be relocated at significant expense to Ashley
31

i and the utility companies that service those connections.
As with the preceding alternative, this alternative suffers losses in efficiency related to
product flow within the facility. A number of storage sheds would be eliminated under
this alternative. While Ashley had planned to use these storage sheds for raw materials
storage and lumber- drying, and for overflow storage of finished goods, the reduction in
the number of sheds will likely mean that Ashley will be limited to using the remaining
sheds for the more constant need, raw material storage. As a result, Ashley would likely
need to find another location on the property for lumber - drying and finished goods
storage. Unfortunately, with the configuration of the facility and the lower ceilings in the
original building which would then be on the South end of the facility, the raw materials
will enter the production area at the southerly end of the building. This fact will mean
that the raw materials must be transported from the North end of the property to the South
side of the building, that more employee time will be needed to transport the materials
through the facility yard, disruptions in transporting the materials will cause greater
interruptions to production, and will result in increased cost and lost efficiency in
operating the facility. In addition, Ashley's studies have lead it to conclude that optimal
product flow must be linear to take advantage of the use of conveyor systems, which
would reduce employee time and injuries in moving product and result in less product
damage from handling. A northerly expansion, though, would require an "S- curve" in the
product flow as it moves from East to West in the production area in the South portion of
the building and then from West to East in the finished goods warehouse in the North
portion of the building. The inefficiencies in this product flow would be exacerbated
under this alternative due to the requirement for maintaining a fire wall between the two
portions of the expanded facility. This feature would restrict the space and traffic lanes
for product to flow from the production area to the warehouse area, causing congestion,
delays, more time being required to move product, and greater risk of collisions, product
damage, and employee injuries. Moreover, this alternative configuration may violate
North Carolina building codes because some work areas would be located too far from
egress doors, thus jeopardizing employee safety and making this alternative impractical.
Finally, expansion in this direction would restrict available areas for truck drive lanes.
This restriction would lead to delays in moving tracks throughout the facility yard and
lead to greater shuttling of trailers to load product in an optimal order. It would also
reduce the utility of the loading docks that could be added under this alternative.
Because extension of a rail spur to the North or South sides of the building is not practical
under this configuration, a shorter rail spur would be constructed. Due to the topography
on the East side of the property and the Norfolk- Southern Railroad's main line being
southeast of the property, the only practical location for a rail spur is at the southeast
corner of the facility, where space is limited and does not provide as much storage space
for intermodal containers. Concentrating on storage of containers in this area of the
property will increase reliance on truck transportation and require more trailer storage
area, most likely in the Southerly portion of the property, which would potentially impact
32

streams and wetlands.
Due to increased costs, loss of existing facility space, building code restrictions, and
operational inefficiencies associated with these configurations when compared with the
preferred alternative, neither of these alternatives will be considered further.
7. Use area east of existing facility (Option #7) One alternative that has been suggested to
address Ashley's needs is to use the area to the East of the existing facility. Ashley has
considered two (2) alternative configurations for a potential expansion of the facility to
the East: (i) an L- shaped expansion to the Southeast (see Drawing E -1); and (ii) a T-
shaped expansion directly to the East (see Drawing E -2).
a. L- shaped expansion to the Southeast of the existing building (Drawing E -1)
This alternative would impact about 2.76 acres of wetlands and about 316 linear feet of
stream channels. In addition, this alternative would impact an approximate 0.25 -acre
jurisdictional pond. This alternative has the advantage of avoiding the relocation of an
existing stormwater management system, which would still be able to provide stormwater
management functions for the expanded facility, and avoiding the need to relocate
existing utilities at the North end of the property. The expansion under this alternative
could be designed to concentrate employee parking near the production area, where most
employees work. This alternative would also avoid the need to relocate an access road
and guard house and avoid the destruction of storage sheds and a truck maintenance
facility located on the property. Finally, due to the extended area of the facility,
production would be more efficient than in some of the alternatives considered because of
the ability to use a conveyor belt system to move product through the facility.
The area to the Southeast of the existing facility is at a significantly lower elevation.
Expanding in this direction would require substantial fill to provide a level construction
site, adding significantly to the cost of this alternative. In addition, the need for fill would
create additional stormwater management issues around the expanded facility. Ashley
would incur additional design and construction costs in order to manage these additional
stormwater management issues.
Unfortunately, due to the limited amount of area East of the existing facility, it would
eliminate about 2,200 square feet of existing office space, which would need to be
relocated to another area within the facility to avoid interference with product flow in the
expanded facility. Perhaps more significantly, expanding in this direction would prevent
Ashley from pursuing its plan of operating the existing facility in the interim and delay
the employment of additional people in the area in the short term.
Ashley's current facility is about one city block from Baltimore Road and a residential
subdivision located just on the other side of Baltimore Road. Expanding in this direction
33

would eliminate the rustic flavor of this rural residential neighborhood. Moreover,
expanding in this direction would render a turn lane on Baltimore Road that was recently
installed useless. It would also require relocation of the existing access road and guard
shack. It should be noted that options for relocating the access road to the North are
limited by the property's proximity to a hill and curve on Baltimore Road that limit traffic
visibility and to the South because of additional wetlands located there and the use of this
area for the expanded facility under this alternative. Moreover, the narrow space
available for constructing the facility while avoiding additional stream impacts would
prevent traffic flow on the West side of the expanded facility and limit traffic flow to one
lane on the East side of the facility. As a result, locating the access point at the
southeasterly end of the property would make traffic flow on the East side of the facility
impossible.
Once through production, the goods will enter the finished goods storage area at the
northerly end of the expanded facility. Because of the space limitations inherent in the
area available for expansion on the East side of the property, the warehouse design is
narrower than is optimal, causing product to be stored along elongated rack shelving.
Because the rack shelving is extended over a longer distance, forklifts must move further
between product locations. Increased distance means increased travel which means
increased time and increased cost, all reducing the efficiency of the warehouse design and
operation. Because of the reduced efficiency of a warehouse configured in this manner,
the demand for such facilities is reduced and therefore the resale value of such facilities is
reduced.
Because this alternative virtually eliminates an existing railroad bed to the East of the
facility that Ashley intends to use for a rail spur, the rail spur would be limited to the
southerly portion of the property. This limitation reduces Ashley's options for using
intermodal containers for shipping finished goods.
This alternative configuration provides sufficient space for parking of trailers that Ashley
anticipates it will need, but unfortunately the bulk of the trailers would be parked at the
end of the facility least suited to storing finished goods. Therefore, these trailers would
need to be moved through the yard to the opposite end of the facility for loading of
finished goods. Narrow corners and large numbers of parking spaces for passenger
vehicles along these routes will likely cause numerous delays in moving these vehicles,
adding time and cost to the distribution operation and making this alternative much less
practical.
Therefore, this alternative will not be considered further for the purposes of this practical
alternatives analysis.
b. T- shaped expansion to the East (Drawing E -2)
34

This alternative would also impact about 2.76 acres of wetlands and 316 linear feet of
stream channels. In addition, this alternative would impact an approximate 0.25 -acre
jurisdictional pond. This alternative also has the advantage of avoiding the relocation of
an existing stormwater management system, which would still be able to provide
stormwater management functions for the expanded facility. This alternative would also
avoid the destruction of storage sheds and a truck maintenance facility located on the
property. In terms of operating efficiency, production would be somewhat more efficient
under this alternative than in some of the alternatives considered, but due to the limited
ability to use a conveyor belt system to move product through the facility under this
alternative, it is significantly less efficient that the preferred alternative.
The area to the East of the existing facility is at a significantly higher elevation than the
existing facility. Expanding in this direction would require substantial excavation to
provide a level construction site, adding significantly to the cost of this alternative. In
addition, the need to excavate would create additional stormwater management issues
around the expanded facility. Ashley would incur additional design and construction
costs in order to manage these additional stormwater management issues.
Unfortunately, due to the limited amount of area East of the existing facility, it would
require the elimination of about 2,200 square feet of existing office space, which would
need to be relocated to another area within the facility to avoid interference with product
flow in the expanded facility. Perhaps more significantly, expanding in this direction
would prevent Ashley from pursuing its plan of operating the existing facility in the
interim and delay the employment of additional people in the area in the near future.
Ashley's current facility is about one city block from Baltimore Road and a residential
subdivision located just on the other side of Baltimore Road. Expanding in this direction
would eliminate the rustic flavor of this rural residential neighborhood. Moreover,
expanding in this direction would render a turn lane on Baltimore Road that was recently
installed useless. It would also require relocation of the existing access road and guard
shack. It should be noted that options for relocating the access road to the North are
limited by the property's proximity to a hill and curve on Baltimore Road that limit traffic
visibility and to the South because of the existing stormwater management structure and
additional wetlands located there. Finally, utilities located to the North of the facility,
such as existing water, natural gas, electrical, and coaxial cable connections, would need
to be relocated at significant expense to Ashley and the utility companies that service
those connections.
Expanding the facility to the East would virtually eliminate Ashley's plans to construct
employee parking in this area. This fact results from the limited available space on the
East side of the property, the configuration in a T -shape to provide the space needed, and
the need for loading docks and truck parking near the expanded facility. As a result,
employee parking areas would need to be relocated to an area South or West of the
M

existing facility, necessitating filling of additional stream and wetland areas. While this
parking area to the West would be near the production area of the facility, it would be at
the opposite end of the property where the relocated access road would likely be
constructed. Parking at the South end of the facility would mean the parking is located a
significant distance from the production area, where most of the employees work. This
location would require employees to drive all around the facility, through trailer parking
and container loading and storage areas, and create safety issues for employees. This
increased traffic would create congestion in the loading and storage areas, cause delays in
the movement of trailers and containers, increase the risk of damage to employee
vehicles, and result in a less efficient operation.
Once through production, the goods will enter the finished goods storage area at the
easterly end of the expanded facility. Ashley's studies have shown that a T -shape
configuration to a warehouse is less efficient. This inefficiency results from forklifts and
warehouse personnel being required to make additional turns around comers in the
warehouse, at reduced speeds for safety concerns arising from reduced visibility. These
corners act as bottlenecks in the movement of product from production to storage and
within storage as product is "picked" to respond to orders from customers. Because of
the space limitations inherent in the area available for expansion on the East side of the
property, the warehouse design is narrower than is optimal, causing product to be stored
along elongated rack shelving. Because the rack shelving is extended over a longer
distance, forklifts must move further between product locations. Increased distance
means increased travel which means increased time and increased cost, all reducing the
efficiency of the warehouse design and operation. Because, of the reduced efficiency of a
warehouse configured in this manner, the demand for such facilities is reduced and
therefore the resale value of such facilities is reduced.
Because this alternative virtually eliminates space available to the South of the facility for
a rail spur (or designates this area for other uses which otherwise would need to be
relocated to other portions of the property), the rail spur would be restricted to the easterly
portion of the property. The space limitations of this area mean that Ashley would need
to reduce its container storage area by 50 spaces, less than what Ashley estimates would
be needed to operate the facility efficiently.
This alternative configuration provides sufficient space for parking of trailers that Ashley
anticipates it will need, but unfortunately the bulk of the trailers would be parked at the
end of the facility least suited to storing finished goods. Therefore, these trailers would
need to be moved through the yard to the opposite end of the facility for loading of
finished goods. Narrow corners and large numbers of parking spaces for passenger
vehicles along these routes will likely cause numerous delays in moving these vehicles,
adding time and cost to the distribution operation and making this alternative much less
practical.
M1

Therefore, these alternatives will not be considered further.
8. Use area west of existing facility (Option #8)
One alternative that has been suggested to address Ashley's needs is to use the area to the
West of the existing facility. Ashley has considered two (2) alternative configurations for
an expansion in this direction: in an L- shaped expansion to the West and North (see
Drawing W -1) and in a linear expansion directly to the West (see Drawing W -2, the
preferred alternative).
a. L- shaped expansion to the West and North (Drawing W -1)
This alternative reduces, but does not eliminate, impacts to wetlands, and actually
increases negative impacts to higher quality streams. Specifically, it impacts about 2.89
acres of wetlands and 505 linear feet of stream channel. This alternative also allows
sufficient area for the proposed building expansion (although a significant portion of
existing building space would be lost and would need to be replaced) and would allow the
facility to begin production during the construction phase of the project. It would also
allow an existing stormwater management system to remain in place and this system
could be used for the expanded facility, although it may need to be expanded to provide
sufficient capacity for the larger facility.
While at first glance this alternative may appear to be preferable to Ashley's preferred
alternative due to the reduced impact on wetlands, on closer examination one will see that
this alternative is not practical for a number of reasons. First, this alternative would
require the elimination of a building in which Ashley has already begun fabricating
furniture parts, eleven (11) storage sheds, and the truck maintenance facility which was a
vital consideration in Ashley's decision to purchase the property. Moreover, as Ashley
has incorporated these buildings in its plan for the operation of the facility, the functions
need to be replaced, preferably on the property and most likely in a more environmentally
sensitive area that will result in increased impacts. The demolition and replacement of
the buildings would be at a significant cost for Ashley. Ashley estimates that it would
cost about $27,923,170 to replace this capacity, if it can be done on the property. The
truck maintenance facility alone is estimated to cost up to $2.3 million to replace. In
addition, the destruction of these buildings will have a negative impact on the local
environment, including the release of particulate matter during the demolition process and
the need to find a suitable location to dispose of the demolition materials. The fact that
the area in which the expanded building would be located is at a higher elevation than the
existing building means that the cost to construct the building would be significantly
higher due to the need to excavate large amounts of material to provide a level building
site. The excavation of a "bowl" for the expanded facility would also cause stormwater
management issues associated with the expanded site. The need to respond to these
issues would add to the design and construction costs of the expansion.
37

This alternative is an attractive alternative in meeting a number of Ashley's needs for the
current facility. It allows Ashley to begin operating the facility during construction. This
alternative also allows existing office space to remain intact. It allows employee parking
to be consolidated and located near the employees' work areas. It allows for a production
flow from East to West, utilizing the existing building with its lower ceiling for
production rather than finished goods warehouse. The employee parking areas would be
located adjacent to the production area, where the bulk of the employees would be
working. It would retain an existing access road and guard house. As noted above, the
expanded facility would be used for storage of finished goods and loading of outgoing
product on trailers. The alternative does allow for a significant share of the trailer
parking spots to be located near the finished goods warehouse, facilitating the loading of
the trailers in an orderly fashion to respond to customer needs.
Nevertheless, this alternative is far from ideal in terms of operational efficiencies, both in
terms of product flow within the facility, and with the movement of trailers in the yard.
An L- shaped configuration will lead to a blind corner in the facility. Negotiating the
blind comer will require personnel to drive forklifts more slowly around the corner to
avoid collisions. It will also cause more delays in product movement within the facility,
whether that movement is from the production area to the warehouse or within the
warehouse as product is "picked" to fill a customer's order. Furthermore, because the
design of the facility would prevent extending a rail spur to the finished goods warehouse,
the use and utility of intermodal containers to serve the facility would be extremely
limited. In effect, the rail spur would be limited to the Eastem portion of the property a
substantial distance from the finished goods warehouse. A smaller container storage yard
would be a less useful asset for Ashley and make it less likely that Ashley could offer the
use of the yard and containers to area businesses. For this alternative to minimize
impacts to wetlands, there would only be one truck traffic lane around the South and
West sides of the expanded facility. This fact creates a traffic bottleneck in the yard,
creating delays in moving trailers and intermodal containers around the facility,
increasing the risk of collisions at blind corners, increasing the risk of product damage
and employee injuries, and bringing traffic in that area of the facility to a standstill in the
event of a collision.
b. Linear expansion directly to the West (Drawing W -2)
While this alternative does impact some wetland area (about 4.089 acres) and 316 linear
feet of streams, it also addresses all of Ashley's needs for the facility, making maximum
advantage of Ashley's decision to select the Advance, North Carolina, facility over the
alternative sites that had been considered. It allows Ashley to continue using the existing
office space and to operate the facility during the construction phase to make the entire
project more cost - effective, and to begin employing people in this economically distressed
area sooner. It maximizes the use of the outlying lumber- drying and storage sheds, and
38

allows Ashley to begin using the existing vehiclepaintenance facility at minimal cost to
upgrade. It consolidates most employee parking near the Eastern entrance and near the
employee's work area in the production portion of the facility. It allows the existing
building to be used for manufacturing while the expanded facility will be more suitable for
finished goods storage. The flow of product through the facility will be in the desired
linear fashion, maximizing the cost - efficiency of the facility and allowing it to compete
effectively now and into the future. It allows for organized distribution of tractor and
trailer storage while facilitating the movement of trailers and containers throughout the
yard to customize the configuration of loads of outgoing product. Most importantly, it
facilities making Ashley a strong employer for the Piedmont Triad area.
In designing this alternative, Ashley has incorporated design techniques to avoid and
m; n. . the impacts to the environment associated with this alternative. First, based on a
recommendation from Ashley's geotechnical engineering firm, slopes will be constructed
to a 2.5:1 slope rather than a typical 3:1 slope. Second, Ashley has decided to construct a
retaining wall to eliminate any impacts at an existing 78 -inch culvert and drainage ditch.
Third, Ashley has elected to extend a 66 -inch culvert to the toe of the slope and to
construct a permanent riprap -lined channel to convey flow to the existing stream. This
design will reduce impacts to the stream when compared with having the culvert discharge
at the creek and using a standard riprap dissipater at the culvert outlet.
This last alternative, described in paragraph 8.b. above, is Ashley's preferred alternative
and represents its current proposal for expanding and improving the Advance, North
Carolina, facility.
B. ALTERNATIVE NEEDS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
As Ashley continues to grow, it will require additional space for employee parking, raw
material storage, assembling finished products, warehouse, container storage, and
unloading and loading trucks and rail cars. Because its current facility cannot be
operated efficiently for the long term, Ashley must expand its facility or forgo its plans
use the facility for production. As a result, the potential economic benefit of Ashley's
acquisition of the property and proposed expansion of it would be lost to the Piedmont
Triad area if Ashley is not able to expand its facility in a manner to operate it
efficiently.
VI. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ashley has analyzed a variety of alternative configurations for an expansion of its
Advance, North Carolina, facility to address its need to increase the efficiency and
production of that facility in the most cost - effective manner. The alternatives range
from expansions in various alternative directions, to constructing a new facility in
another location, to adding a second story to its existing facility.
39

Ashley personnel conducted an extensive analysis of the various alternatives discussed
in this document. Attached as Exhibit I is a matrix summarizing the analysis they
completed. Ashley personnel analyzed each alternative for (i) initial costs for design,
site development, construction, and stormwater management, and (ii) operational
efficiencies based on manpower needed to generate a static level of production,
including consideration of distances for product to move within the facility between
production and storage, and between the storage `pick" location and the loading docks,
and in the facility yard for configuration and loading of trailers. The analysis also
included an assessment of the differences in cost to operate each alternative over a
given period, as it is Ashley's intent to operate the facility for several years into the
future.
Each of the other alternatives suffers from costs associated with development or costs
associated with operational inefficiencies or both. The other alternatives that have been
suggested have various limitations, including cost, practicability, feasibility, and limited
utility in satisfying Ashley's needs or improving its production techniques. Finally,
many of the alternatives would be counterproductive in meeting Ashley's needs, either
because the alternative would eliminate some asset which has been identified as a need
or because the alternative would increase product handling and product damage, and
not improve the competitive posture of the Advance facility for the future.
While the preferred alternative would impact streams and wetlands, it is the most cost -
efficient alternative for meeting this project's overall purpose, which is to increase the
efficiency and production of the facility in the most cost - effective manner and to enable
it to implement current technology and future technological improvements in the
furniture industry.
Based on this analysis, the most practical suggestions are to expand the facility to the
west, as indicated in paragraph 8.b. above, a linear expansion directly to the West, and
to construct a container storage yard South of the facility. These proposed
improvements are shown on the diagram set forth in Drawing W -2.
The proposed expansions of or additions to Ashley's factory are designed to improve
the facility's production and efficiency. The normal flow of goods through Ashley's
system would be extended and improved by these proposed expansions and additions.
This flow of goods is crucial to the principle of "Operational Excellence."
"Operational Excellence" is a principle Ashley adopted from the book, The Discipline
of Market Leaders2. It is based on the theory that all market leaders, of which Ashley is
one, operate under one of three overriding principles:
2 The Discipline of Market Leaders, by Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema, (Addison - Wesley)
(1995).
40

1) Providing the best overall product value in the industry. ,
2) Being the most innovative company in the industry.
3) Cultivating intimate relationships with customers.
Of these three principles, the principle that best fits Ashley's operations is the first, to
give customers the best total value of any furniture manufacturer in the industry. This
means that in everything Ashley does, operational efficiencies must be incorporated, so
that the savings may be passed on to the customer in the form of lower and more
competitive prices. If Ashley achieves this goal, it will be able to employ more people
and make the company stronger, which will provide greater job security for people in
the Piedmont Triad region and in North Carolina.
41

Drawings
Drawing S -1 - Expand directly to the South
Drawing S -2 - Adding East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility
Drawing N -1 - Add East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility
Drawing N -2 - Square addition to North of existing building
Drawing E-I - L- shaped expansion to the Southeast of the existing building
Drawing E -2 - T- shaped expansion to the East
Drawing W -1 - L- shaped expansion to the West and North
Drawing W -2 - Linear expansion directly to the West
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibits
Exhibit A
- Original Arcadia, Wisconsin, Facility
Exhibit B
- USA Manufacturing and Support Staff Headcounts
Exhibit C
- Sales Growth
Exhibit D
- Spreadsheet Comparing Alternative North Carolina Sites
Exhibit E
- Existing North Carolina Facility
Exhibit F
- Product Lines
Exhibit G
- Plant Closing Report
Exhibit H -
Truck v. Rail Cost Comparison
Exhibit I -
Alternatives Analysis Summary Matrix
Drawings
Drawing S -1 - Expand directly to the South
Drawing S -2 - Adding East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility
Drawing N -1 - Add East -West rectangle parallel to existing facility
Drawing N -2 - Square addition to North of existing building
Drawing E-I - L- shaped expansion to the Southeast of the existing building
Drawing E -2 - T- shaped expansion to the East
Drawing W -1 - L- shaped expansion to the West and North
Drawing W -2 - Linear expansion directly to the West

f ,
1 1 I j f f 1
(_ I RESJ4��TIgL I j I J
CLEv� I
I~ _ L
1 Q STRICT,.,,
1
.1
1
1
1
w � �
1
N
H

EXHIBIT S
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.
USA Manufacturing and Support Staff Headcounts*
(by year)
1982: 327
1983: 370
1984: 450
1985: 610
1986: 705
1987: 925
1988: 1353
1989: 1580
1990: 1800
1991: 1847
1992: 1850
1993: 1765
1994: 1988
1995: 2663
1996: 2484
1997: 2620
1998: 3147
1999: 4150
2000: 4757
2001: 4632
2002: 5259
2003: 6120
2004: 7128

2005: 8503
2006: 9198
2007: 9307
2008: 7295
2009: 8244
2010: 8575
2011: 9055
Present: 9247
*Does not include employees of Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd., or Ashley HomeStores, Ltd., or its licensees.

EXHIBIT C
Sales Growth
1982:
$16 million
1983:
$19.8 million (23.8% increase)
1984:
$23.7 million (19.7% increase)
1985:
$29.8 million (25.7% increase)
1986:
$57.8 million (94% increase)
1987:
$89.5 million (54.8% increase)
1988:
$125 million (39.7% increase)
1989:
$146 million (16.8% increase)
1990:
$153 million (4.8% increase)
1991:
$172 million (12.4% increase)
1992:
$204 million (18.6% increase)
1993:
$255 million (25% increase)
1994:
$311 million (22% increase)
1995:
$365 million (19% increase)
1996:
$429 million (17.5% increase)
1997:
$520 million (21.2% increase)
1998:
$643 million (23.7% increase)
1999:
$813 million (25.2% increase)
2000:
$933 million (14.8% increase)
2001:
$1.114 billion (19.4% increase)
2002:
$1.406 billion (26.2% increase)
2003:
$1.742 billion (23.9% increase)
2004:
$2.147 billion (23.2% increase)
2005
$2.720 billion (26.7% increase)

2006
$3.119 billion (14.6% increase)
2007
$3.150 billion (1.0% increase)
2008
$2.893 billion ( -8.2% increase)
i
2009
$2.745 billion ( -5.1 % increase)
2010
$2.968 billion (8.1% increase)
2011
$3.724 billion (8.7% increase)
(21.28% average annual increase, 1982 -2011)

Ix' a' FibvYiL�3A. hw,d;d4`E2;:7AA4,.t�C7A6ghRSYe' o :x. . x�cnrszcsmmm��;a� -ac
; a � s �,w , mu a, saa
�a waara oa
r• � RIUWX*AlW2jRrIUV . edPU P•HFAYe
S
y
ED
z
-off'
�
a
N
N
a
='
Q
t'
CU
-C-1
�
y
=
o
o
0
a°
ctr
c,
County Tier Designation:
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
Year Built:
1965 -2000
1977
2005
2004
1969 -1973
1970 -1974
1985 -1991
Total Land Area Available:
157.9 Acres
300+ Acres
108.6 Acres
30 Acres
95
146 Acres
33 Acres
Construction Type:
Varies
Combination
Conc. Tilt -up Conc. Tilt -up
Brick/Mas.
Brick/Steel
Steel Bldg.
Building Area:
1 MIL. SF
409,610 SF
534,021 SF
520,000 SF
481,131 SF
502,034 SF
352,782 SF
Office Area:
N/A
16,525 SF
49,992 SF
6,600 SF
10,000 SF
12,600 SF
9,677 SF
Mezzanine Area:
None
None
212,926 SF
6,600 SF
36,000 SF
None
3,247
Wall Hei ght
Varies
24' -27'
35'9 " -41'
28'
28' -40'
14' -31'
Varies
Column Spacing:
Varies
Varies
36x36
40x40
Varies
Varies
Varies
Building Perimeter
8,754
N/A
N/A
3,080'
N/A
N/A
4,593
Floor T e:
6" Conc.
6" Conc.
6" Conc.
6" Conc.
N/A
5" Conc.
6" Conc.
Loadin Docks:
60
34
185
78
35
20
22
Sprinkler System .
N/A
ESFR
ESFR
ESFR
N/A
N/A
Varies
Roof Type.
Membrane
Built Up
EPDM
TPO
TPO
Steel
Steel
Paved Parking:
N/A
100+
1907
127
250
400
178
Electrical Service:
N/A
3,000A
N/A
1600Kva
6,500A
N/A
31,000A
Lighting:,
HB -MH
HB -MH
T5/T8 -MH
HB -MH
8'T12
FLUO -MH
HB -MH
HVAC Type:
LP
Propane
NG V
NG
NG 6"
LP
NG
Floor Elevation:
N/A
780
N/A
600
832
N/A
122.41' FFE
Depth of Water Table:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Flood Elevation:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90'
Environmental Concerns:
Yes
None
None
None
None
Yes
Minor
Expandable:
Limited
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rail Spur.,
None
Yes
None
None
None
Yes
Yes
Distance to Interstate:
N/A
3.8 Mi.
2.37 Mi.
N/A
12.36 Mi.
0.4 Mi
1.5 Mi
Store Site Available:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Ratin :
13
3
7
3
7
9
6
H
ty

ha"Add=770HmfiM RA Ru&m&rdMNC LOTS
On-site Cmtaetk Tom John= I Tel• 2 269-0d79
Pkaseprome: MastRemntlkdFitateTar=fs) S33,973
Depredation Expense 5220000
PovreraudPud S126.920
Electric $29
Water and Sewer S9.924
Land Acgddtioo Cost- (Sale Cmtrad)
Caastrudion Casts (Contractor's Payed)
by fuepmaf steel frame (eutmht walls)
bymalloved cmtcaft fiame (anmm aaUs)
ms0udion with steal interval fimme
FiBAAb=Gmund(sqffgl 575AS6 I BdmvOmdec%aj
OmuButHftAma(sq /JU — 37306 1 OfiioeArea(s A
WdlHdabt 16' -2A' EvetiorWaUmaterial
No. Loaft DockL
1 21
Load DockAma(sgM)
NIA
Av&DaekBaySim
NIA
No Dock kW-cless
NIA
DedstkigbtFloon(YIl4)
YES
TBD
RaafAma(sgllk)
573 "6
RoaMpal
Vanes
RoofrazmilYeu
NIA
Na PovedPadang Spam
WA
PadipsAica(sciMl
NIA
$27s,000
UFRdIY MRMATION
EkarimlMeterB
EkddW Service Sim
ElearimlVoO/%ase
GazMmerB
Gas SeMm Sim (md)
SprinklesS)stemRffimg
NaterhleOVB
%vowservise5tm(mch)
SeuaServioeSrse(mch)
HVAC WFORMATION
HMIT)Pel
LP I
Has! Cepadt)
Make-Up Air Copadq
� 3T»x
C�sov�a
Vcoa'Ia6onCapadty
COMMUNICATIONS MRMA77ON
GEOTE65RCALWFOIN(A770N
UBCS0,113aul
I
IigaeficatumResilusux
ricimfirationSosceptib'
Depth ofNaterTabh
Hood SusmptibUtty
LsndshdeSuttephhmy
Elevation
Top 111
Soil Candrttort
MARirENANCE rum
Pm'eded pate
Pm'ected Cod S
r
NIA
mw
540000
Mmn
s
TBD
oazbBddc
NIA
Paint
5230000
COMMIDPANIfis
NIA
RdmFd
$27s,000
Total Pending Maiolemmm Costs: 5345000

OTMAL o
UffiAY MRMATIGN
PropmyNm=
Hto bD Fuminue Mc Trot 03
PmpetyAddmsr
770H tM Rutherford NC LOT@
ElwrimlVoltmhase
O"teCont t
mafohmon TeL•
28 2894879
Ptesseprodde: Most Remat Red Fatste Tax BM(s)
563004
SpnnklerSystemRatiog
Depredation Espeose
$220000
Pam and Fad
$40 62
SeaesServiaSva(imh)
Eleetrk
510713 9
HVACINFORMAMON
WaterondSma
$14,324
H-Twe
Land Aegaidton Costs (Sale Contract)
Hest Cep
Consftcdon Costs (COntradoes Payout)
Coduall Two
SWPodd byEapwdMd Game (w[safn swlb)
Sappoded bymmforted --te frsme (=(am aalb)
Masonryconsn melon nvth steel iamtad fume
Wood f aMla aM aadioa
Gmsa BailftAsa (sg18) 433,397 OffiaAtm (sqQ NIA M=Mhmkm
Wali HeWd 24' Exterior WaO Mate al CONC Bulling K im to
OmmdFloorType CONCRETE httemc&&EloorType CONC Cahaon7jpr
No.LOad' Mcks. 39 TwdDodtArm(WJB) NIA AvB.DodtBaySim
Na DoekLavdas 39 DodtHe*Floas(YIM YES
N(LhvodPmkmgSpml NIA Parfg
PeCMUMAMENANCETTEMS
UffiAY MRMATIGN
'rded COSTS
EkdddMeerd
EkddWSaviaSiae
Maio OHioe'FuccW
ElwrimlVoltmhase
SS 000
GmMeff
OuScmceS(m(l )
Rehm Fit
SpnnklerSystemRatiog
5130000
WateMeterN
WaurServiaSize(mch)
SeaesServiaSva(imh)
HVACINFORMAMON
H-Twe
LP
Hest Cep
Mal- UpAirCapaeity
Coduall Two
CaootsCapadty
VemileionCepacity
COMMUMCAMONS INFORMATION
GEOTECHMCAL REFORMATION
UBC Sod awl
I
Uqueti atia Railietm
Ugttefianm Su;apubltty
Depth of WaterTable
Food Smoepnbildy
Landslide Smapn30ity
Elevation
Topography
SogCoadifioo
PeCMUMAMENANCETTEMS
PmctdDam
'rded COSTS
RoofftelforderReplacgownt
$867194
Maio OHioe'FuccW
SS 000
Sneft O8om
$5,00D
Rehm Fit
5130000
LIM pAph
SM.000
Trial PmdmS Maintenance Costs. 51077194

PmpedyName. Rl Holds
PtopertyAddass: Raltimom NC LOTH
OnsiteCootaer Afelissa5mi0t T01:1030380-79.'
Plemprovide; Must Reeeot Red Fatste Tar H71(s)
Depredation Expense
PowerandFad
Electric
Wafer cad Seaaer
Land AcquWtioo Costs (Sale Contract) Sll 000
Construction Casts (Contractor's Payout)
by6aprcofsted frma (curtain walls)
bytdnforoM commie fmnre (atrtaktwalb)
BelotrGrade D FI"Beknvor
OIEaArea(sgHq 9750 Alezmn
Evledor Wall Material STEEL Building
Me, lAaftDockc LoadDorkAcea(aq/fO- N/A AvR.DockBaySke
No. Do* Efivelca; 34�� Do*W*Rom(Y"l YFS
No pawd Pafts spoesi 1001 b 4ingArea(sgfl) N/A
'ettedDate
LJ
Men Ana Snalon PernuttaiNew FmWm
UilIWDWORMATWN
Datnd Mew
F]eadd Service Siff 3 0DOA
fledrid Voh/Phau
GasMeoerp
RoofWamnty vp=4y=
an Samoa size (meb)
SpHaklarS)s —Raft
ESFR
Wawmctertt
Waterserviasim(maA) !0"
Sewerservlasux(inch)
atn a and forPemhousa Floor
HVAC06ORMA71ON
Floor Cm* Ikepaus and CedrAg Paint
lfas7)pe
LP
I HmtCap
Mas; -up Air opacity
CaalbtgType
Vanes
CoohogCepactty
VentilationCapauty
COMMUNICATIONS WORMATION
[EA
L�j
GEOTECHMCALMRMAMON
UBC sod Class
Uquefiw Rniheaa
liqucfiauon Susrspb'bbty
Depth of WaterTsble
77
Floodsosequtb0hy
No
LaddideSuscepbb0R3
Elevation
MW
Topogseph3
Soil C"dao
PEND]IMMAMENANCEREvis
'ettedDate
P eardConS
Men Ana Snalon PernuttaiNew FmWm
S90000
Considerable Itmiting anPudnts and Phuns
RoofWamnty vp=4y=
$1,639,440
Radamm need face0ll
AmfladiShatrNbcded
atn a and forPemhousa Floor
Floor Cm* Ikepaus and CedrAg Paint
$400000
(BUDDNODRAWING)
Total PeaftblaiotmsmaCosts: IZ 440

PmpertyName TnaITed:Ceadr
PgwdyAddmss:3200T kriici i W IATd
Onsiteconmet MdivaSoulb 71:1: 1(336) 580.7958
Please provide: Most Record Red Estate TasRi0(s)
Depreciation Expense
Power and Fuel
Electric
Watertndlimer
Land Acquisition Costs (Sub Caatrac0 S4.ISPerSFI=Pnm
Coostracdon Costs (Contracwt Payaad)
Sa wrW bymmfosmd concrete frame (cmtausualb)
&ban" msWaimudthacedmocraelfrmm
GnmBu0ftAta(sq/R) 534021 Office Area (sq /R) 95,541 Mez®
Wag %W 3541' pstaiorWallMtteml CONC Bwwkg
GroundFlocrType 6- CONC bstrmr<dateFlrarType CONC Cal
NaImdmgDod= 185 LoadDorkAta(uM NIA Av&Dock
No Dock: Is ele:s 185 DockibipMFioom(Y" YES
RaofAiu*gfO) $34021 Roof Type EPDM Roam
Na Paved Paddog Spaces 1907 Pu m SAma (mA NIA
PENDINGMAMrENANCE11EM5
UMMY MFORMATION
Pm=W Cost S
ElectsiealMeterd
EeetdwS.W.Scre
Electrlcdvolu=
480Y1271
GasMetero
Gas ServimSim(md)
*---16,
SprinklerSystrmRating
ESFR
tVaterMeserR
WaterServimSns(�rds)
Sooner Service size OW4
S.
RVACMFORMATION
lieatType
I%'G
I Hut CapamY
Make-Up Air Capacity
CoolingTypol
TmnoDX
Caolms
085 tons
VemRation capacity
COMMUMCATIGNS MFORMATION
FebuOptie
Yes
F:�
LEJ
GEOTECtNCAL MFORMAMON
UBCsoClass
Lique6eatronRenbeam
=' t'-
Uqueficadom S u cepoblity
Depth oF%Vucrlable
Flood S By
��
Landslide Susapab0ity
Elesutioa
Topogmphy
SoI Condition
PENDINGMAMrENANCE11EM5
actedDUe
Pm=W Cost S
sa '
Small Ana RetmFa
390000
(BUI J=DRAWM(i)
TOM Pcoft Maiaenonm Cans: 390 000

Pro"Name ud Adams
Pro"Addres• 6550) Adams Rd Wld NC LOTO
On3ite Catdact: Mehra Sndth TcL 3 580.7958
Pteae provide: Most Recent Real Estate Tax Bi0(s)
Depredation Expense
Prover and Fuel
Electric S00S PerKW
Water and Sewer
Land Acquisition Costs (Sale Contract) 517.680JM
Construction Cub (Costractor s Payout)
rfisepmofstml frame (ccutam walls)
reiaf=ed concrete fiamo (cortam walls)
stmction wpb steel interval fiaam
eonssaclioo
VOn move umuno( pW 1 320000 ReJmvGsde(sq/R) 0 FlashBdow Grade (Svft) 0
GmsBuddmgA=40fi) 520000 OlfieeAmaOq/1t) k600 Mm anim(age) rj,6w
Wall Height 2V ExtumWaRMaterial CONC BuRi0gPenrocter X080
Gmundl?1=73pe 61CONC. immnWbeFI.T37e CONC ColwmT)pe WA
No. L=ftDock 78 LoadDnckAma(gq/R) N/A Avg. Dock Bay Sim NIA
No. Dock Levelers 78 Do*HeelFloors(YIN) YES
RoofAma(sq/R) 520,000 Roof Type TPO RooflastallYear 2001.06
No. Paved Pad®gSpam 127 PadmtgArea(sg8) N/A
UTI2TYINFORMATION
ElectrtdMeterd ElectricalSavisSrsc I600Kva ElectricalVoluThme 48W
Gas Meter @ Gas Semen Sin (iseh) Sp&Ucr S)stan Rating ESFRK -14
WaterMcterA Water Service 16' Sewer Service Size (mdt)
HVAC INFORMATION
HmtT)pe NO Hmtcapaeity Metc-upArrCapxdy
CsoligsT)7e Mmd C-ftcw*l Veahlationeapaaity
COMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION
Fb"Optie Yes
GEOTECINCAL INFORMATION
uBCSot�Cbs Liquefim6onResgienm LigaefimGonsusaptrbfiq•
Depth of Water Table Flood Sosaptmr7ity Iartdshde Susaptrb0ay
Elevation 600x- Topography soil Coacraim
CE ITEMS
fmiectmiDate
Pwiected Cost
OAme Nmm Faal R and LJ ' Retrofit
S90,000
WaebatseLi Retrofit
S200,000
- oval Coh®r
s150000
JointFahrNmdcdinNmvAdditioa9 000SJ
SI00000
Exit Door Weslperileals
!Roofbqkodm
(BUIDINO DRAWING)
Total Pending h aLm_ Coss: 554 000

DS 2R RTY, LQ:S770N Rt:
PmpaWNmw SlolaedsleDistnbolioa
14opatP Addass: 7220 US 10 •128 Stobmd NC L61'd
Oo silepoolacl: MelismSadlh Td 380-095S
Please provide: Most Hemet Red EsmteTax Eft)
Dcprtdadoo Egwase
PomersudFod
Ehn3de
Water and Sew
Land AcgaisiBOO Costs(Sale Conceneo SMM0,000
Coostruedon Cmtt (Contractor's Pgyooq
Wdl Height AC 40 Emarior Well Mateid
Gommd FborT)Pe Gene hrtamafiftneerT)pe
W Lwft Dodm 33 Land Dock Amn (sq*%
X& DOCkLex)er: 33 Do& Ha& Fh ns (YN
No. Pored Paddgq
PEl DOMA1NiENANCEMEMS
OlTimNothfaceft
UMXrY WFORMATION
Fso'eemd Cost$
Elemieal Mae9
Elatrieal Savior aim
EkadmlV 480!3
GasMoterd
GosSawreSiz:6c*
NOV
SpdnUwSm —R-M
NIA
NaterMetQd
NmeSavioeSim(uulO
NIA
SemaSasiaLzn(a
ae
AlCandisonmedonatopecaft
HVACRMU MMON
Heat T)pcl
Heat Cw*-
MdrUp AkCapariq
C- U -6T3pe
Cmin�gCapaeiq
%watioaCap
COMMIMCATICNS WFORMATlON
FbaOptie
GEOTECMCAL WFORMATION
UBC Son Class
Uquetcation Resdieno:
Ligae @eaGOa Suuxpahliq
E*ahufWdaTdle
Flood Sasapabnly
LendsUdeSmupObilip
Elevation
Biz
TOMMO
Sao Candmon
PEl DOMA1NiENANCEMEMS
OlTimNothfaceft
pale
Fso'eemd Cost$
E!deoor Wass Show Sm=WrmDmnm
lashfig ReaoMNeeded Enure Buffdftog
ESFRS Svttrm Needed
S7 000
Meszmdnd Removal
$38
Old Da&Dods Cap end FiR
AlCandisonmedonatopecaft
MMDDJGDRAWING)
Told Peodcss MmuoenooreCmu: E 000

AROP flES770 _ - g U (MARY
PapeayName. Ba VafevDatrrbuimBo
PmputyAddress 7401 24W NC LOT
Oa'sitc Cam= Rm Allen Tel 91 308S98d
Pbase provide; Mat RW t Bed Esbta Tax BM(s)
Depreciation Expense
Posy and Fad
Electric
Water and Sawa
Land AcquisiBmCosb(SoleContraN 80D
Consbutdan Cab (Contractor's Poyang
(0)Suppariedbys h&mcdemcmeSame (certain waft)
X ( C)M-- Yc3nmuctimwah gad mtmwftamo
(W Wood fiatmemsbucuon
S • • SW fram Mal- RIA.
GBAAboseGmvud(aq/B) 50 034 Below( do(Wft) 0
FmizhBebsvOrada(aglB;
GrastBaldhtgArm(zq/R) 5 034 Office, M(sq/B) 1 600
Maaaome(sgm
Wag Height 13434' Elderia Waf Material Briebm
Bufditq<Pemmete
GramdFbwT)pe 5 °C4ne, latamedate: T)pa CONC
ColurtmT)pt
Na, Loading Dmkx 20 Load Dock Arm (u t) MA
Avg Dock Bay Size
No DockLaswles MA Dod;HeWdFlOom(MO YES
GmServieeSme[oreh)
RoofAma(sWik) 5 034 ROOfT)pe Stad'EPD
RoofinsbOYew
No Paved Parking Spaaces 400 PwkwgArem (sqB) MA
Water hfet «0
PENDIING MAINTENANCE ITEMS
urILM INFORMATION
P Cat S
OBice Needs Faadr@
Ilemial Meta d
Elaviealtwice Sin
Eks:trical Vo6lPhasa
NaO/Roof
Gullet «0
$250000
GmServieeSme[oreh)
N04'
SprioLiuS)staoRotigq
roFBS
rCdm=
Water hfet «0
Weer Swig Size[aeh)
8°
Sat« Service Size (aeh)
breement
HVAC INFOR
MatitepairsNeaded If
Had Type
LP
Heat
Coofurg Type
Cooling
COMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION
Fr7rer Optk
GB0TEC)IN)CAL(NFORMATION
UBC Soil Chul
I
LiquelkaE. Resfimce
Lique6eation Suseepb'blity
Depth of Water Table
Placed Suscepbb0rty
Landslide
SCTopography
Devetrm
Sao tity
PENDIING MAINTENANCE ITEMS
Pm'eaed Due
P Cat S
OBice Needs Faadr@
Ate Flash SmdvNeedad
NaO/Roof
$250000
RetrOFa
roFBS
rCdm=
OhaFBI
breement
MatitepairsNeaded If
MURDMGDRAWING)
TOW Pmdmg Mawcoance Cants: 8136

- Dlm rr:Tlrr
P1opatyNamc Plasdafh{Rdi' -
PrgtenyAddns-5746Paba0SOat NC LO70 HEq
On-dm conmm ' Imdm I Teh 9W -1498
Pion proddo Most&c dReal Esbfe Taa BRgs)
DfpsaMoo Eapeose
POW and Fad
mectyk
Water ad Baser
LsedAcquWdw Cab(Sale ft*aep 49
Constmff= Costr(Ce mtoe'sPa3=0
blgtpood by MWm edeonemb flame(autain palls)
Maser c=9medon uvh gal hdemzl fume
bloom mamstreetiun
umbsso Wq A=(sgM 3 781 OHhe Aaa(aq%b 977 Mc dne(sM 47
Woil Hdght 13'48' Eveda Wad Materiel Sted BdMin8Pedmda 4393
OnumdFlaor4)pe 6•Conc bmmcdh"FlaaTHK CONC CDWmn Type H43d
N%IAWngDacts 21 Load DalcArea(s q N/A Av$.DD*My She WA
N&DodcLadas MA DahHdghtM —(YR4) YES
RoofAea(4M 332,781 ReofT3pe Smed RmffnstoU Yea 83M1
Nmft-d?mkhg Spier 400 PadiogAx W)j MA
DIILI7Y INFORlfA7'IOH
Elemdml MdaB EledtitalSada 6Pa 3100DA Elecww VOh/Phue 480f3
(b$MCW OasSrnunSme(Irch) I NOY Spddda$)V=Radog ESFR
Waterbdaer0 Watts Senioe SIM(hmwl 10• I Sena smite sue(Iod0 4foead
HVAC RWORMATMR4
NOIT)wL_NG_j Ekg Cepedly Makcd3p Air Capazits
Co hnTyPe -ft �s3' VeaBffioo Crpa0y
COMMUNICATIONS B(FORMA71OH
ii6vOgk
GE EMWALDWO MIMM
UBC Soli Chm LigaBpdmFm7ienoe LigaGadim SuaspUb lly
DeplhofWetcrTable Fhwd SutaptBtIDty Loodshde&mmph3U&y
El,.6o 11241 7opagmphy Soil Condition
PF7MWGMAWMMNCEff&a
Date
pwltaaCaus
RafReho Fit Both Phase
5176&940
OdueReMI&OSMtniomm
SI 000
Ll9WMRdwFll
S22sin
O!Bftpwnft
l 080
Wa0
7OD
f
a
Taal Pending mdffl nma Cats®
`/`*ate � • � � .
1
t, c

jwm ;w
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.vdffactory.com

EXHIBIT F
Product Line Changes
1970: Curios, electronics cabinets
1973: Bookcases
1974: Entertainment Centers
1983: Bedrooms
1984:
International Division
1988:
Millennium
1988:
Casual Dining
1989:
Formal Dining
1991 -92:
Millennium (Medium Price Point)
1991 -92:
Ashley Line (Promotional)
1994:
Upholstery
1994:
Ashton York Ready -to- Assembly
1996:
Leather
1997:
Motion & Recliners
1998:
Imported Bedroom, Mattresses, Lamps & Accessories
1999:
Ashley Furniture HomeStoree furniture stores
2002:
Bedding
2005:
Top -of -Bed Accessories
2010:
Power motion furniture

Aberdeen Furniture Industries
Aberdeen
MS
Jul -02
4
Accent Products Co
Los Angeles
CA
2004
100
*estimate
Alan White Company
Alan White Company
Stamps
Shannon
AR
Jun -05
300
Upholstered furniture mfr (2 other plants remain)
Alexvale Furniture
Taylorsville
MS
NC
Jan -07
2001
283
87
American Drew (La- -Boy)
N. Wilkesboro
NC
2001
70
American Drew La -Z -Bo )
N. Wilkesboro
NC
2001
120
American Drew La -Z -Bo
American of Martinsville
N. Wilkesboro
Chilhowie
NC
Apr -09
257
This plant closing and other La-Z-Boy o s consolidating
American of Martinsville
Martinsville
VA
VA
Jun -02
450
total Jobs lost in several layoffs, then closin
American of Martinsville
Martinsville
VA
Aug-08
A r -10
400
228
Ameriwood
Tiffin
OH
Dec -06
58
Amerrwood
Arbek Manufacturing
Dowagiac
Chino
MI
Jul -07
170
Dorel Ind company ... RTA furniture
Ashley Manor
High Point
CA
NC
Aug-02
Jul -07
250
30
*estimate
Upholstered furniture mfr
Athens Furniture
Athens
TN
2001
630
Athens Furniture
Statesville
NC
Oct -01
250
*estimate
Baker Furniture
Holland
MI
Dec -03
166
Baker Furniture
Baker Furniture
Mocksville
NC
Aug -07
0
2 pi ants closing in Mocksville
Baker Furniture
Mocksville
Hildebran
NC
Aug -07
0
em to ees offered transfer to Hildebran
Barcalounger
Rocky Mount
NC
NC
Nov -08
Jun -09
117
146
Layoff
Bassett Furniture Industries
Bassett
VA
2001
1000
Bassett Furniture Industries
Dumas
AR
Feb -00
195
Bassett Furniture Industries
Bassett
VA
Nov -00
280
Bassett Furniture Industries
Los Angeles
CA
Oct 02
200
Bassett Furniture Industries
Dublin
GA
Feb -03
300
Bassett Furniture Industries
Macon
GA
Au -04
180
Bassett Furniture Industries
Mount Airy
NC
Nov -05
300
Bassett Furniture Industries
Bassett
VA
Apr -07
280
Bassett Furniture Industries
Mount Airy
NC
Apr-09
50
distribution facility
Bauhaus USA
Amory
MS
Jan -06
160
Bauhaus USA
luka
MS
Ma -07
154
Berkline /BenchCraft
BaldwVn
MS
Aug-06
425
Layoff at recliner Dlant
Berkline /BenchCraft
Livingston
TN
Jun -07
250
Berkline /BenchCraft
Blue Mountain
MS
May-08
200
200 of the 400 lost in MS will be added in TN
Bernhardt Furniture
Lenoir
NC
2002
80
Bernhardt Furniture
Lenoir
NC
Se -03
125
Bernhardt Furniture
Shelby
NC
Ma -05
14
Bernhardt Furniture
Bernhardt Furniture
Lenoir
NC
May-05
50
will now import 100% of residential wood furniture
Lenoir
NC
200
Plant 2
Bernhardt Fumiture
Lenoir
NC
-May-05
Apr-09
100
upholstered furniture
Bethel Furniture Stock
W. Bethel
ME
Jun -02
71
Blackhawk Furniture
'Block
Riverside
CA
Sep -04
570
once employed 570 according to an earlier report
& Company
Laurinburg
NC
2001
66
Boyd Furniture Company
Pomona
CA
Jul -03
1000 Itotal
jobs lost in several la offs, then closing
EMIBIT G

tsraxton c;uuer
High Point
NC
7u1-02
200
Brookwood Furniture
Pontotoc
MS
Nov -03
20
Brookwood Furniture
Bruce
MS
-May-07
60
Brookwood Furniture
Pontotoc
MS
Aug -07
200
Upholstered Plant
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Conover
NC
2002
100
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Lenoir
NC
2002
136
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Summerville
SC
Mar -01
0
employees transferred in consolidation
Newton
NC
Jun -01
277
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Rutherfordton
NC
Dec -03
506
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Conover
NC
Apr-05
106
Dining chair finishing & assembly plant FBI
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Lenoir
Rutherfordton
NC
NC
May-05
Aug -05
100
160
Layoffs at various plants in May (FBI)
2 plants closing, 350 employees transferred
Bro hill Furniture (FBI)
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Lenoir
NC
Aug -05
485
FBI)
2 Plants closin 350 employ ees transferred FBI
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Lenoir
Lenoir
NC
NC
Jan -06
Jan
0
3 plants closing, 421 employees affected FBI
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Marion
NC
-06
May-06
421
72
2 plants closing, 421 employees affected (FBI)
furniture frame plant
Broyhill Furniture (FBI)
Lenoir
NC
Aug-06
692
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Lenoir
NC
Feb -07
390
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Lenoir
NC
Mar -09
25
hftp://www.fumituretoday.com 'cle/48146-Bro hill to con
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Lenoir
Lenoir
NC
Mar -09
25
hftp://www.tumituretoday.com/ar0cle/48146-BroyhllL to con
Broyhill Furniture FBI
Lenoir
NC
NC
Mar -09
25
htt : / /www.fumiture coda .com /article /48146 -Bro hill tc con
Bro hill Furniture FBI
Mar -09
25
hftr)://www.fumituretoday.com/article/48146-Bro hill to con
Bruce Furniture Armstrong
Ta lorsville
Bruce
NC
Mar -09
25
hftp://www.fumituretoday.com/article/48148-Broyhill to con
MS
Aug -03
86
Bruce Furniture (Armstrong)
Port Gibson
MS
Sep -03
120
Bush Industries
St. Paul
VA
Mar -04
140
Bush Industries
Erie
PA
Feb -07
90
Layoff
Bush Industries
Jamestown
NY
Apr-07
50
Closure
Caraway Furniture Kensin ton
Sophia
NC
2001
170
Cardinal Brands
Laurinbur
NC
2002
120
Carter Furniture
Salisbury
NC
Jan -09
85
Acquired by Directional Fum but Plant closing
Caseworks Furniture
Tucson
AZ
2003
100
*estimate
Catalina Furniture Company
La Mirada
CA
2000
400
est. per Art Raymond
Ca ye Home Furnishings (Stratoloungi
New Albany
MS
Aug -10
600
Charleston Forge
Boone
NC
Nov -05
34
Chromcraft Revington
Sumter
SC
Oct -06
200
Sumter -brand
Chromcraft Revington
Warrenton
NC
Dec-06
58
Chromcraft Revington
Delphi
IN
Apr -08
150
Chromcraft Revington
Lincolnton
NC
Nov -08
185
Upholstry plant
Classic Concepts
Gardena
CA
2004
100
*estimate
Columbia Showcase & Cabinet
Sun Valley
CA
Sep-03
18
Cooper Wood Products
Rocky Mount
VA--Feb-041
122
'
Councill Craftsmen
Denton
NC
Nov-03
200
Craftwood Design
Haleyville
AL
Dec -00
80
Creations Manufacturing Inc.
Fresno
CA
May -03
119
Cresent Manufacturing Co.
Gallatin JTR
Sep-04
50

It_AGSWnL manuracturm moo.
Custom Products
vallatin
TN
Apr -06
Ceasing domestic production
Mooresville
NC
2001
56
!Custom Woodcraft Inc.
Paso Robles
CA
2003
40
Davis Furniture
Houlka
MS
Dec -06
130
Denaire Furniture
Cheektowaga
NY
Aug -04
150
Design Institute America (DIA)
Jasper
IN
Mar -05
100
*E el ent., occassional, dining
DMI Furniture
Huntingburg
IN
Nov -01
72
DMI Furniture
Huntingburg
IN
Nov -10
62
Closing plant#5
Dorel Industries
Fort Smith
AR
Jul -01
190
Ameriwood
Dorel Industries
Wright City
MO
Oct -05
300
Doxey Furniture
Aberdeen
NC
Jan -04
150
Drexel Heritage Fumishin s (FBI)
Black Mountain
NC
2001
89
Drexel Heritage Furnishings FBI
Drexel
NC
2002
120
Drexel Heritage Furnishings FBI
Drexel
NC
2002
175
Drexel Heritage Furnishings (FBI)
Morganton
NC
Apr-04
45
Drexel Heritage Furnishings (FBI)
Marion
NC
Apr -04
350
Drexel Heritage Furnishings FBI
High Point
NC
Dec -08
300
Drexel/Henredon plant
Drexel Heritage Furnishings (FBI)-
FBI
Morganton
NC
May -09
30
100 total job losses at Drexel &Lane plants
Drexel Heritage Furnishings FBI
Mount Airy
NC
May-09
30
100 total job losses at Drexel & Lane lants
Dunmore Furniture Industries
Maiden
NC
Jan -05
20
Upholstered furniture mfr total 150 jobs at 3 ops
Dunmore Furniture Industries
Granite Falls
NC
Jan -05
45
Upholstered furniture mfr total 150 jobs at 3 o s)
Dunmore Furniture Industries
Hickory
NC
Jan -05
100
Upholstered furniture mfr total 150 jobs at 3 o s)
Economy Furniture
Austin
TX
Jul -03
100
Elite Furniture
High Point
NC
Aug -05
140
Ethan Allen Interiors
Atoka
OK
2006
15
Convert u h plant to dist facility
Ethan Allen Interiors
Spruce Pine
NC
2006
450
Ethan Allen Interiors
Asheville
NC
Jun -01
110
total of 350 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Ethan Allen Interiors
Frewsbur
NY
Jun -01
120
total of 350 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Ethan Allen
Interiors
Island Pond
VT
Jun -01
120
total of 350 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Ethan Allen Interiors
Orleans
VT
Apr-02
69
Ethan Allen Interiors
Randolph
VT
A r -02
154
Ethan Allen Interiors
Dudlev
MA
Feb -03
165
total of 584 jobs lost in Feb 2003 plant closin s
Ethan Allen Interiors
Mayville
NY
Feb -03
172
total of 584 jobs lost in Feb 2003 plant closings
Ethan Allen Interiors
Union Cltv
PA
Feb -03
247
total of 584 jobs lost in Feb 2003 plant- closings
Ethan Allen Interiors
Bridgewater
VA
Jun -04
190
Ethan Allen Interiors
Boonville
NY
Jun -04
266
Ethan Allen Interiors
Dublin
VA
Oct -05
250
Conversion of plant to warehouse
Ethan Allen Interiors
Eldred
PA I
Jan -09
350
-donsolidatlng to NC and CA plants
Evenflo
Suring
WI
Mar -03
203
Falcon Companies
Canton
MS
Jan -04
240
Falcon Companies
Belmont
MS
Sep-04
170
First Source Furniture Group
Leeds
AL
May-02
134
Flexcel Kimball
Post Falls
ID
Apr -03
60
Flexsteel Industries
Dubuque
IA
Aug -04
50
Flexsteel Industries
Lancaster
PA
Nov -08
125
residential and vehicle seating Lancaster, PA and New Part
Flexsteel Industries
New Paris
IN
Nov-081
125

monaa i- umiture
Furniture Brands International
Furniture Row Companies
Good Cos.
Great American Oak
Guy Chaddock & Co.
Hamma (La -Z -Bo
Hart Furniture
Hart Furniture
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
Haworth
HDM Furn. Ind. Henredon -FBI
HDM Furn. Industries (FBI)
HDM Furn. Industries FBI
Hekman Furniture
Palatka
St. Louis
Denver
Carson
Chino
Bakersfield
Granite Falls
Corning
Collierville
Chadbourn
Kent
Holland
Kent
Holland
Holland
Hazelton
Henderson
Lincolnton
Jonesboro
High Point
Spruce Pine
High Point
Hildebran
Grand Rapids
FL
CO
CA
CA
CA
NC
AR
TN
NC
WA
MI
WA
MI
MI
PA
TX
NC
AR
NC
NC
NC
NC
MI
Jan -03
-5-
ec-08
Sep -03
Nov -06
Oct -00
Aug -04
Jun -02
May -05
May-05
-2002-345-
Apr -01
May -01
Jun -01
Dec-01
Jul -02
Jul -04
Jul -04
Jul -04
Ju1-04
Mar -05
Dec -04
Jun -05
Dec -05
2006
200
1400
100
100
175
82
171
279
71
180
189
190
145
67
75
161
230
10
150,200
45
0
60
Company-wide cutbacks...- 0 plants closing
Particleboard case goods
*estimate
Ceasing production... once empl 450
Ceasing Pro duction...once em 1 450
of 350 jobs moved to Morganton plant
Henredon plant, 185 employees transferred (FBI)
employees offered transfer to Morganton plant
*see Drexel Heritage High Point, NC closing Dec 2008
Hekman Furniture
Lexington
NC
Jun -04
26
Henredon FBI
Morganton
NC
Dec -07
521
Henredon (FBI)
Herman Miller
High Point
Zeeland
NC
MI
Dec-08
2001
0
3000
Herman Miller
Rocklin
CA
Nov -01
400
Hickory Hill (Norwalk)
Hickory Mark La -Z -Bo)
Hippopotamus
HON Industries
Valdese
Sherman
Los Angeles
Williams ort
NC
MS
CA
PA
Aug -08
Oct-02
2004
2001
164
150
100
186
*estimate
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture
Hooker Furniture Bradin ton -Young
Martinsville
Kernersville
Maiden
Pleasant Garden
Roanoke
Martinsville
Cher ills
VA
NCj
NC
NC
VA
VA
NC
Se -01
Aug -03
Oct -04
Oct -05
Aug -06
Mar -07
Nov -08
100
270
240
280
275
280
31
Home entertainment and home office plant
layoff
Hooker Furniture Bradin ton -Youn
Hooker Furniture Bradington -Young)
Jasper Cabinet
Hickory
CherryVille
Jasper
NC
NC
IN
Nov -08
Jan -11
Jul -02
23
20
125
la off
closure; alofty of 121 employees will be offered transfers
Jasper Corporation
Jasper
IN
Nov -01
113
Jessica Charles, LLC
High Point
NC
Mar -05
10
John Widdicomb
Grand Ra ids
MI
Jul -02
100
*estimate

Keller Furniture
Culpepper
VA
Sep-021
120
Keller Furniture
New Salisbury
IN
Jul -04
150
Kensington Furniture
Mantachie
MS
Jun -01
160
total of 500 jobs lost in June 2001 closings
Kensington Furniture
Houlka
MS
Jun -01
170
total of 500 jobs lost in June 2001 closings
Kensington Furniture
Houlka
MS
Jun -01
170
total of 500 jobs lost in June 2001 closings
Kimball Furniture
Jasper
IN
Jun -01
360
total of 1,800 jobs lost In 2001 layoffs, closings
Kimball Furniture
West Baden
IN
Jun -01
360
total of 1,800 jobs lost in 2001 layoffs, closings
Kimball Furniture
French Lick
IN
Jun -01
360
total of 1,800 jobs lost in 2001 layoffs, closings
Kimball Furniture
Greenville
KY
Jun -01
360
total of 1,800 jobs lost in 2001 la offs, closings
Kimball Furniture
Weaverville
NC
Jun -01
360
total of 1,800 jobs lost in 2001 layoffs, closings
Kimball Home
Jasper
IN
Jan-05
300
*est ... ceasing resident turn prod
Kincaid La -Z -Bo
Hudson
NC
Aug -04
120
Kincaid (La -Z -Boy)
Lincolnton
NC
Jul-07
500
*total of 500 jobs lost in Kincaid/La-Z-Boy closings 2007
Kincaid La -Z -Bo)
North Wilkesboro
NC
Aug -07
0
*total of 500 jo bs lost in Kincaid /La -Z -Boy closings 2007
Kindell Furniture
Grand Rap ids
MI
Jan -09
24
(layoff not closure Grand Rap! 's last residential Turn facto
Klaussner Home Fumishin s
Asheboro
NC
2001
120
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Asheboro
NC
2001
148
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Asheboro
NC
2002
133
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Asheboro
NC
2006
50
*layoff is est ... 4 plants merging to 3
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Greensboro
NC
Mar -00
162
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Randolph
NC
Jan -01
40
Klaussner Home Furnishings
Bruce
MS
Apr-07
115
Klaussner Home Furnishings
La Miranda
CA
I Oct -09
84
Kolcraft Enterprises
Chicago
IL
I Jul-001
50
Krause's Furniture Inc.
Brea
CA
Oct -01
1172
includes retail employees
Krueger International
Winona
MS
Mar -07
80
Kushwood
Ontario
CA
Aug -04
900
once employed 900 according to an earlier report
Lane Furniture (FBI)
Alta Vista
VA
Jun -01
275
total of 1,100 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Lane Furniture (FBI)
Rocky Mount
VA
Jun -01
275
total of 1,100 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Lane Furniture (FBI)
Rocky Mount
VA
Jun -01
275
total of 1,100 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Lane Furniture (FBI)
Alta Vista
VA
Jun -01
275
total of 1,100 jobs lost in June 2001 plant closings
Lane Furniture FBI
Pontotoc
MS
Dec -08
100
Article: "most' of the 200 employees offered jobs elsewhere
Lane Furniture (FBI)
MS
May-09
40
1U0 total job losses at Drexel & Lane plants
La-Z-Boy
Lincolnton
NC
2001
130
La -Z -Boy
Florence
SC
Apr-02
436
La-Z-Boy
Booneville
MS
Aug -04
100
La-Z-Boy
luka
MS
I May-07
0
*total of 500 jobs lost in Kincaid/La-Z-Boy closings 2007
La-Z-Boy
Tremonton
UT
Jul -08
630
Closure of upholstered furn plant
La-Z-Boy
Monroe
MI
Nov -08
610
850 job losses companywide (including 240 at Dayton, TN
La -Z -Boy
Dayton
TN
Nov-08
240
La-Z-Boy
Bauhaus
MS
Jan -09
150
Upholstered plant closure
Lea Industries La -Z -Bo
Marion
NC
Apr -01
145
total of 310 jobs lost at Lea & Pilliod La -Z -Bo
Lea Industries La -Z -Bo)
Waynesville
NC
Nov -01
256
Lea Industries La -Z -Bo
Morristown
TN
Dec-03
175
total of 325 jobs lost in December 2003 plant closings
Lea Industries (La -Z -Boy )
I Morristown
TN
Jan -04
150
total of 325 jobs lost in December 2003 plant closings
Leggett & Platt
I Greensboro
INC
2001
50

Leggett & Platt
Wooster
OH
Jan-021
384
Leggett & Platt
Wooster
OH
Sep-021
145
Leggett & Platt
Hi h Point
NC
Dec -05
15
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
2001
60
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
2002
150
Lexington Home Brands
Kingstree
SC
Oct -00
45
Lexington Home Brands
Spruce Pine
NC
Nov -01
297
Lexington Home Brands
Mocksville
NC
Oct-02
360
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
May-03
350
Lexington Home Brands
several locations
NC
Jun -03
1688
3,600 company-wide layoffs through June 2003
Lexington Home Brands
Mocksville
NC
Oct-03
250
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
Oct -03
400-
Lexington Home Brands
Linwood
NC
Mar -05
65
Plant 2
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
Apr -05
20
Plant 4
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
May -05
38
Plant 2
Lexington Home Brands
Lexington
NC
May-05
70
Plant 5
Lexington Home Brands
Linwood
NC
Nov -05
360
Plant 2
Longaberger
Hartville
OH
Sep -04
110
Longaber er
Newark
OH
Sep -04
215
Longaberger
Fraze sburg
OH
Se 04
895
Lucky Star Industries
Baldwyn
MS
Jun-041
65
Marco Manufacturing
Tupelo
MS
I Feb -03
20
Master Design
Eupora
MS
Mar -02
100
*estimate
Mastercraft
Council Bluffs
IA
May-06
50
Maxon Furniture HNI Co
Salisbury
NC
Dec -10
132
Meridian Furniture Manufacturing
luka
MS
Jul -10
35
Moosehead Manufacturing
Monson
ME
Feb -07
120
closed for good...equipment sold at auction late 2010
Myers Furniture Industries
Clarksdale
MS
Nov -02
4
New Antiques of America
Riverside
CA
Jun -04
100
*estimate
New Generations
McKenzie
TN
May-09
150
Upholstered fum
New Look Furniture
Shannon
MS
Apr-04
25
Newell Window Fashions
Freeport
IL
Jul -01
100
*estimate
Nichols and Stone
Rural Hall
NC
May-06
82
Nichols and Stone
Gardner
MA
Jul -08
268
Workforce down from 350 at peak 3 yrs ago to 100
Nordwin's Furniture Company
Los Angeles
CA
I May-04
100
*estimate
Norwalk
Norwalk
OH
Aug-08
1000
Norwalk closed TN, MS shops, New company operating OH
Oakwood Furniture
New Tazewell
TN
Jan -07
56
Orleans Furniture
Columbia
MS
Nov -09
50
Closing to focus on imports, 50 out of 75 jobs will be lost
Orman Grubb
Anaheim
CA
-Aug-04
500
total jobs lost in several layoffs, then closing
O'Sullivan Industries
Lamar
MO
2001
160
O'Sullivan Industries
Cedar City
UT
20011
450
O'Sullivan Industries
South Boston
VA
Dec -06
200
PA House La -Z -Bo
Monroe
NC
Dec -03
75
PA House La -Z -Bo
White Deer
PA
Aug-04
100
total of 425 jobs lost at 2 PA House plants
PA House La -Z -Bo
Lewisbur
PA
Aug-04
325 1
total of 425 jobs lost at 2 PA House plants
Padgett Furniture Manufacturing__
Calhoun
ITN
Se 03
55

Palliser
Troutman
NC
2001
85
Pembrook Chair
Conover
NC
Feb -08
110
Peo Loun ers Inc.
Mantachie
MS
Jul -04
30
Peo Loungers Inc.
Mantachie
MS
Jun -09
170
Pilliod La -Z -Bo
Swanton
OH
Nov -00
140
Pilliod La -Z -Bo
Selma
AL
Apr-01 1
165
total of 310 jobs lost at Lea & Pilliod La -Z -Bo
Pilliod La -Z -Bo
Nichols
SC
Au -04
120
total of 120 laid off in 2003 & 2004
Pilliod Michels & Co.
Nichols
SC
Nov -04
133
Closure ... 391,000 s ft.., promotional case goods
Progressive Fumiture Co.
Claremont
NC
Dec -07
330
Sauder div ... laminte/veneer BR fum
Pulaski Furniture
Martinsville
VA
Oct -00
200
Pulaski Fumiture
Ridgeway
VA
Jun -03
68
Pulaski Furniture
Pulaski
VA
Dec -06
119
Pulaski Fumiture
Pulaski
VA
Apr-07
260
Quality Fumiture
Pontotoc
MS
Jan -03
10
R & R Fumiture
Woodland
MS
2002
48
Regal House Fumiture
Ecru
MS
Feb-03
98
RHC /Spacemaster Corporation
Melrose Park
IL
May-01
87
Richardson Brothers
Sheboygan
WI
Dec -03
265
Ridgeway Fumiture
Ridgeway
VA
Dec -07
70
closure
River Oaks Fumiture
Baldwyn
MS
Aug-02
169
Riverside Fumiture
Fort Smith
AR
Jul -01
300
jobs lost from high mark 1500) to July 2001 (1200)
Riverside Furniture
Fort Smith
AR
Dec -08
250
consolidated .2 plants into 1
Riverside Fumiture
Fort Smith
AR
Mar -09
43
Layoff
Riverside Fumiture
Russellville
AR
Mar -09
15
Layoff
Robert Bergelin Co.
Morganton
NC
Aug -09
15
'estimated job losses
Rock City Furniture
North Little Rock
AR
May-01:
160
-
Rowe Fumiture
Poplar Bluff
MO
20061
400
Samuel Lawrence Fumiture
Phoenix
AZ
Mar-041
790
total jobs lost in several layoffs, then closing
Schnadig Fumiture
Montoursville
PA
Jun -04
91
Schnadig Furniture
Cornelia
GA
Feb -05
30
Frame -making lant
Schnadig Furniture
Belmont
MS
May -07
140
Schweiger Fumiture
Jefferson
WI
Ma -04
117
Simmons Juvenile Products
New London
WI
Dec -01
75
Simmons Juvenile Products
New London
WI
Jul -04
261
Singer Furniture
Chocowinity
NC
1 20001
200
Sligh Fumiture
Holland
MI
Sep -02
35
Sligh Furniture
Holland
MI
Sep-05
75
End of domestic mfr after 125 yrs
Smith Fumiture Mfg.
Waco
TX
Jun-07
200
Upholstered fum mfr ... 200 employees in 2000
Southern Furniture
Elizabethtown
NC
2001
60
Springs Window Fashions
Wausau
WI
Jul -03
141
Standard Furniture
Frisco City
AL
20081
200
layoffs
Standard Furniture
Bay Minette
AL
20081
140
layoffs
Stanley Furniture
West End
NC
Dec -01
400
Stanley Fumiture
Lexington
NC
May-03
150
Stanley Fumiture
I Robbinsville
NC
Jan -07
200
Layoff
Stanley Fumiture
IMartinsville
IVA
Dec -07
250

Stanley Furniture
Lexington
NC
Dec -08
350
Stanley Furniture
Stanley Furniture
Stanleytown
Stanleytown
VA
VA
Mar -09
Jan -10
100
190
Layoff
Layoff
Stanley Furniture
Statements, Inc.
Stanleytown
Victorville
VA
CA
Dec -10
2004
530
90
Plant will permanently close Oct -Dec 2010
Statton Furniture
Hagerstown
MD
Nov -08
38
82 Year familv business
Steelcase Inc.
Steelcase Inc.
Steelcase Inc.
Steelcase Inc.
Athens
Tustin
Colorado -Springs
Solon
AL
CA
CO
OH
Feb-01
Feb -01
Feb -01
Feb -01
1048
1048
1048
1048
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
Steelcase Inc.
Grand Ra ids
MI
Feb-01
1051
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
Steelcase Inc.
Fletcher
NC
Jan -04
1048
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
Steelcase Inc.
New Paris
IN
Jan -04
1048
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
Steelcase Inc.
Steelcase Inc.
Steelcase Inc.
Stoneville Furniture
Grand Ra ids
Kentwood
Grand Prarie
Stoneville
MI
MI
TX
NC
Jan -04
Jan -12
Jan -12
Jun -03
1051
400
175
90
total of 8390 jobs lost since 2000
Closures to occur during 18 months following Jan 2011
Closures to occur during 18 months following Jan 2011
Sunrise Medical
Stevens Point
WI
Jun-04
34
Taylor Brothers Stair Co.
Gardena
CA
Jan -02
100
*estimate
The Chair Com an
Libe
NC
2001
90
The Michaels Company
Sacramento
CA
1 26000-
*estimate
This End Up
Ralei h
NC
2000
150
est. per Art Raymond
This End Up
Sanford
NC
2000
150
est per Art Raymond
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Johnson City
TN
2000
190
total of 390 jobs lost in MS/TN layoffs
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Fayette
MS
NC
2000
2001
200
55
total of 390 jobs lost in MS/TN layoffs
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Hickory
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville
NC
1 2001
75
Thomasville Furniture Ind, FBI
W. Jefferson
NC
2001
239
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Newton
NC
2001
277
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Lenoir
NC
2001
300
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville
NC
Dec -02
425
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Winston -Salem
NC
Oct-031
410
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Thomasville
NC
Jan-041
200
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Statesville
NC
Aug -04
118
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
High Point
NC
Mar -05
110
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Thomasville
NC
Nov -05
298
Plant A
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville
NC
Nov -05
322
Support
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Thomasville
NC
Aug -06
278
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville Furniture Intl. (FBI)
Troutman
Troutman
NC
NC
Jul -07
Jul -07
50
50
Consolidated 3 plants into 1 in Hickory
Consolidated 3 plants into 1 in Hickory
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville Furniture Ind. (FBI)
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thomasville
Thomasville
Lenoir
NC
NC
NC I
Jul -07
Jul -07
May-09
100
130
150
Plant C casegoods plant closing
Admin, exec & other throughout co.
Layoff
Thomasville Furniture Ind. FBI
Thorne Manufacturing
Appomattox
Houston
VA
MS
Mar -11
Ma -03
200
13
RTA & contract plant ... some production will transfer to NC f
Thunderbird Furniture JChino
CA
250 lest.
250 Jobs per Art Raymond

Union Ci Chair
Union City
PA
Oct -00
1 200
*estimate
Universal Furniture
Goldsboro
NC
Mar -01
1 61
Universal Furniture
Marion
NC
Mar -01
1 360
Universal Furniture
Morristown
TN
Mar -01
1 546
Vaughan Furniture
several locations
VA
20031
350
Vaughan Furniture
Galax
VA
Feb-03
245
Vaughan Furniture
Johnson Ci
TN
Jun -04
200
Vaughan Furniture
Stuart
VA
Nov-04
213
Vaughan Furniture
Galax
VA
Mar -06
200
Vaughan Furniture
Galax
VA
May-08
275
Vau hn- Bassett
Atkins
VA
2002
250
Vaughn-Bassett
Sumter
SC
Jun -04
350
Vaughn-Bassett
Atkins
VA
Jan -07
55
Vaughn - Bassett
Elkin
NC
Jan -09
250
mothballing ...could reopen... -400 at Elkins, +150 at Galax
Vermont Precision Woodworks
Morrisville
VT
Jun -08
20
Vermont Tubbs
Brandon
VT
2003
148
Vermont Tubbs
Brandon
VT
Oct-03
27
Vermont Tubbs
Brandon
VT
Jul -08
75
Consolidating to Brown Street plant ... 25 of 100 offered jobs
Vineyard Furniture
Winnsboro
LA
Dec -10
75
Vir inia Sterling
Midvale
OH
A r -10
45
Wambold Furniture
Simi Vallpy
CA
r -03
275
Webb Furniture Enterprises
Galax
VA
Jan -06
309
Cease B/R fur, still mirrors, pbclebd
Webb Furniture Enterprises
Galax
VA
Jun-04
151
Whittier Wood Products
Eugene
OR
2006
100
Transfer most mfr to Vietnam plant
Wild Rose Furniture
luka
MS
Jun-04
200
Wing Industries
Hanover Park
IL
Jul -00
99
WoodMarc Enterprises
Winterset
IA
Jul -07
114
Woodmaster Inc.
St. Anthony
IN
Jun -06
55
Produces for Reinisch
T otal
I
842601
1

X11;
Cost of Alternative Modes of Transportation
From Arcadia, Wisconsin, to Ashley Distribution Centers
cf = Cubic Foot
Monroe Township,
NJ
Colton, CA
Ecru; MS
Orlando, FL
Avg.
Boxcar
$.41 /cf
$.44 /cf
$.46 /cf
$.41/of
$.43 /cf
Container
$.47 /cf
$:44 /cf
$.47 /cf
$.49 /cf
$.467/cf
Truck
$.60 /cf
$.87 /cf
$.75 /cf
$.78 /cf
$.75 /cf
cf = Cubic Foot

TABLE 1. SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR ASHLEY'S ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Cost Differential
$ 138,212,382
$ 174,223,259
$ 100,942,894
$ 91,276,177
$ 100,043,459
$ 48,907,693
$ 63,888,532
bd
H
H
Infrastructure & Development
costs
Changes in Employment
py
Annual Changes in
Production
Changes in Operational
Efficiencies
Annual Cost (2)
Five -Year Cost
(3)
Wetland Impacts
Alternative
Activity
Site development
#
Wear
Wholesale ,
Activity
Annual Cost
Acres
Stream
Preferred
A endix
$ 146 666 152
2 594
$ 89 819 638
699 000 000
Appendix
$
S 89 819 638
$ 595 784 340
4.09
316
N -1
endix
$ 188,623,672
3,004
$ 101 940 453
W5745263699000000
699 000 000
A ndix
7 130 157
$ 109 070 610
$ 733 976 721
0.19
N -2
A endix
217 108 672
3 038
$ 102 959 009
699 000 000
A endix
$ 7 618 777
$ 110 575 785
769 987 599
0.13
W -1
A endix
$ 177 127 792
2 896
$ 98 741 070
699 000 000
A ndix
5 174 819
$ 103 915 888
696 707 234
2.89
505
E -1
A endix
$ 151 086 000
2 970
$ 100 945 312
699 000 000
Appendix
$ 6,245,591
107 190 903
687 040,517
2.76
316
E -2
Appendix
$ 150,454 750
3 004
$ 101 940,453,
5 745 263
$ 699 000 000
Appendix
7,130,157
$ 109,070,610
$ 695,807 799
2.78
316
S -1
Appendix
146,666,1 1
2 813
$ 96!294,110
5,745,263
699,000,000
1 A ndix
$ 3.307.066.
$ 99,601,176
$ 6",67 033
1 2.001
4 627
S -2
Appendix
$ 146,666,152
12,874
1 $ 98,092 575
5,745,263
$ 699 000,000 1
Appendix
1 $ 4,504,769 1
$ 102 597,344
j $ 659,652,872
1 3.901
1,199
Cost Differential
$ 138,212,382
$ 174,223,259
$ 100,942,894
$ 91,276,177
$ 100,043,459
$ 48,907,693
$ 63,888,532
bd
H
H

N.
rm r m � � �: �� s a �►in1eR �1� � O � S � � F�
~6g
i
OR �*
OZ
Cp
ic
zo
r
d
- —off ' -` aALTvm ! m ;a
z
v
D0
z
z
8 ADV S1 -01
ASHLEY FURMIURE IND. INC X iiigiii� f
AAA Advents:, Nash Carolina 3 ¢III $
y �
soUTH • 1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN
AIM 11
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.odffactory.com
P'OD cna09 ND. D�a6lcry eD re�vDn rnrnQ�lcav mm

x -+
oil,
°m
,5
z_�
MIALTOMINIM
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www Ddffactorv.com
_
ADV s2-oi
0
gx;
A
=
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND.. INC ..
iq
Arcadia, Wisconsin
SOUTH - 2 ALTERNATIVE PLAN6�s
IMP
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www Ddffactorv.com

ooplg� r
M
Nil 8HO
IE
14
o
., z
= �i
I.
n
C
o ,. c
i .. -- etiTroru Koti�
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.odifactory.com
ADV NI ' 01
�
3
Y
j
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND.. INC
A—die, Wisconsin
E1�939g
_
NORTH -1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.odifactory.com

a�tifTt,
a it v- v
IQ
1p
IM j § -
W, ., W
� 8
4* M _
\ IS \tltlf \O
?,t'Qt
ly
' �ANi ,,i1�J / \jl�l; \ \\itl��• i //-` % � %ji�il.' ��� .+
[�
r"'Z
i 0
X Z
Y l
.. c
:uan
Q
c r
c o
v r.
MtTYd1E IIOAD
b
Y
f7i1
15
Sa
�
i
At
j
j
j
E
ADV !12 � Oi
ASHLEY FURNITURE INO.. INC'
Arcadia, Wia in
�P$
n
Y IDS
� BB 7y7y,,
_ IF
Sg
ld S
NORTH. z A1.RTERNATIYE PLAN35g`'
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www odffactory.com
res u.ra.a. car.cay ttn r.„o««,.an4e,...o

11-40,
p
lot�
J 1111 }}t
7
a) Y,
ills
>0
IA
,j A
, rt,
iml
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version wwvv.L)dffactory.00m
E
ADV -01
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND., 1W
Amadim, Wisconain
EAST ALTERNATWE PLAN
2
i
, it
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version wwvv.L)dffactory.00m

+._..r.._.xML'1'......"aa,,,aipa J� .!
•
- �• Y t
tr.. �
"L
1
`rr
i
N 3'rt
t
1
_ q
i
/ {I
1
I
I
-11 I
I
1
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Un
-
F
ADV E -02
ttS
��
i
u
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND,, INC
S
ail
m
Arcadia, Wlarnaln
Rio
i of
i
6
Q
y.
i
h
EAST ALTERNATIVE PLAN�6Eflaai6,
iaCj
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Me Imsmisom W /Y_1a" M 11 nom s
yN 3
cn
r 4
I<
r
D1�
n
I
it
i : 1 \`
um Mll,j
1 . J
!E
ORR
Ir
■ ;
L
if
ARV
gaaFpp
i �4 ^ E
C
�
,\
ra � ``•,
i J 1 J
°
A
i
TUBE
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND.. INC.
Q
a :
�HIM
7
�o
n
I
it
i : 1 \`
um Mll,j
1 . J
!E
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.Dditactory.com
:ryF .iaMeO Mm VOr�cbry bud r�nen.M.raT�cbn
ORR
Ir
■ ;
L
ARV
gaaFpp
i �4 ^ E
�
TUBE
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND.. INC.
a :
�HIM
7
A.&anu. North Caroliru
Y9r
4 Y:
[ } }}
er r
WEST -1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.Dditactory.com
:ryF .iaMeO Mm VOr�cbry bud r�nen.M.raT�cbn

19 oil
s�
X8 gig
A
1 y+,
• � y
.� It
tt 1
r tt
�� ft
t �
t 6
c @
bi
E
109
E�
jai
n
�t
i U,
z
r
o
N
1
i2
I
z
t
19 oil
s�
X8 gig
A
1 y+,
• � y
.� It
tt 1
r tt
�� ft
t �
t 6
c @
bi
E
109
E�
jai
n
�t
N
1
i2
I
z
t
ADV PROPOSED�i3@
19 oil
s�
X8 gig
A
1 y+,
• � y
.� It
tt 1
r tt
�� ft
t �
t 6
c @
bi
E
109
E�
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.i)dffactory.com
jai
gg
ADV PROPOSED�i3@
+
/
ASHLEY FURNITURE IND.. INC
tArcadia,
Wisconsin
+
PROPOSED
a�t@/sa@
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.i)dffactory.com

APPENDIX VII
EEP Letter Dated September 18, 2012

EWa, mm it
►Rocl"m
September 18, 2012
Mike Moran
Ashley Furniture Inc.
One Ashley Way
Arcadia, WI 54612
Expiration of Acceptance: March 18, 2013
Project: Ashley Furniture 668 Acre Tract Baltimore Road County: Forsyth
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved. You must also comply with all other state federal or local government permits regulations or authorizations associated
with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337• An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011 -343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification /CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required for this impact is determined by permitting agencies.
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
Warm
Ri arian
Non-Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Yadkin
03040101
0
0
600
4.5
0
0
0
0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providingt wcompensawry mttigafioh. The miiige[ton will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 716 -1921.
ely,
uzan a mek
Acting erector
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wetlands /401 Unit
John Thomas, USACE - Raleigh
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ - Winston -Salem
Bradley Luckey, agent
File
T*�►
R"horr;4�... E ... PYDtEGt4;T our -Tta& D�IR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919- 715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

Jow
Ashley-Advance
A
* kuwck"
+ Off-dV"Oft
cm* ftwww"
coasmi Smw ftwxxv- Swe"'S
Rooft
NC Kw w"
—us w4twift
i!,1 WO HiPAMY
Pol�osr! Arms
cam* SWAM
m 3000 Feet
9014 PON 6W*aVW(SP") North Carolina
cmu Seaft" Floodplain Mapping Program