19951103 Ver 1_Complete File_19960505

l
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PA
CIVIL. MUNICIPAL L STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
BOBBY L. JOYNER, P.E.
1. MICHAEL STOCKS, P.E.

6 February, 1995
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Corps of Engineers
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27615
RE: VILLAGE GREEN, ROCKY MOUNT, NC
Action ID: 199300379
Dear Eric:
. ; OCT 1 6 1995
Recently you called me concerning the above referenced project. As you know,
we received a USCOE permit to fill 4.17 Ac of Wetlands adjacent to, and above the
headwaters of, an unnamed tributary to Stoney Creek, for construction of the
proposed Village Green Development.
Since we obtained the permit in December of 1992, the owner has been
negotiating with the potential user concerning who would be financially responsible
for filling the site and bringing it to usable elevation (i.e. the building pad area must
be above the 100 year flood elevation). A cost that could reach $1,000,000.
Therefore, we delayed beginning our fill operation as long as possible. In October
of 1994, approximately two months before our nationwide permit was scheduled to
expire we generated Phase I grading plans that called for the placement of 2' to 3'
of dirt placement in the permitted wetland area. This operation was completed by
November 30, 1994. In reading the permit conditions, it did not register with me
that the mitigation planting had to be completed by March 1995. It was my
understanding throughout the entire process that we would begin our fill operation
as late as possible, complete our fill operation as soon as the terms and
agreements were finalized with the retail user, construct the proposed Stormwater
Management facility and plant the mitigation area immediately following. We have
worked numerous nationwide permits over the past several years, which did not
require mitigation planting and, simply put, it escaped me on th.is project.
Since you brought it to my attention late January, I have tried diligently to put
together.a team to complete the mitigation planting. Unsuccessfully, I have
contacted several agencies try to secure species that would meet the conditions.
841 South Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
6 February, 1995
Page 2
Most importantly, I spoke with Leon Jernigan of Needham, Jernigan and
Associates, who is planting the mitigation site for the individual permit issued to
Crooked Creek, Action ID 199400727, for us. He has exhausted all his energies
over the past several months, November to current, obtaining the required species
for planting at Crooked Creek. He has done so successfully after going through
several local companies, state agencies, and two firms out-of-state. These
agencies inform Leon that no additional trees can be obtained this late in the
planting window. In addition, the proposed mitigation site has not been graded to
it's final proposed contours. The mitigation area behind the Stormwater
Management Facility has not been cleared from existing vegetation or graded.
Without undo hardship, it is virtually impossible to clear and grade this area during
February and March, it is simply too wet. Additional time is needed to allow for
clearing and grading to take place in the drier summer months.
At this juncture we have two options; the first is to request an additional month or
two to allow sufficient time for the proposed mitigation area to dry from the winter
wetness, grade the site as proposed, and plant the trees outside of the dormant
season for the trees, OR secondly, we could ask for an extension, in order to plant
the trees during the dormant season late 1995 or early 1996.
If an extension of time was granted, the following steps would be completed to
ensure that the mitigation planting was completed by a March 1996 deadline. First,
we would immediately contact a planting agency in order to secure species for
planting. These trees can be ordered and held for use by Village Green.
Secondly, we would make plans to grade the site during•September or August,
generally the driest months of the year, and thirdly the trees would be scheduled to
be planted in January of 1996. It is our opinion that if these steps were followed,
Village Green would be able to create an approved mitigation area that the Corp of
Engineers and the developers of Village Green would be proud of and more
importantly it would fulfill the mitigation requirements of the approved permit.
In order to increase the chances of species survival, allow for adequate time to
make sure the trees selected for planting are prime species, and grade the site
sufficiently to ensure that the hydrology criteria is met at this time, I am requesting
your most favorable review in granting my client an extension of one year.
Whether this request is granted or not, it is our intent to adhere to all the conditions
outlined in the approved permit. Therefore, as discussed with you on Wednesday,
February 1, 1995, we request that we meet on-site February 21, 1995 to discuss
the possibilities of mitigation planting in an area that is not planned. for future
development, that is closer to the stream bank, and an area that is more likely to
meet the hydrology criteria. The area is within the Floodway of Stoney Creek, and
is protected by FEMA from future development activity.

r ? 1

Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
6 February, 1995
Page 3
Thank you for your consideration and review of our request of an extension of one
year on planting of the mitigation site and should you have any need for additional
information, please do not hesitate to phone me.
Awaiting your reply, we remain,
Very truly yours,
J. Michael Stocks, P.E.
cc: R.D. Gorham
file
JMS:vjm
94105a.doc

Tuesday, October 10, 1995
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality. Planning
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Village Green Site -- Rocky Mount, NC
Joint Application Form for NWP #26
401 Water Quality Certification
Dear John:
rte` t,- (- ,
Li Li I I I
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PA
CIVIL, MUNICIPAL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
BOBBY L. JOYNER, P.E.
J ?yGliALl.bi(3EIf5; P.E.
OCT 1 6 1905
By affect of this letter and the attached joint application form, we are requesting that a 401 Water
Quality Certification be issued for an impact of 8.42 acres of wetland habitat for the construction
of the Village Green Project. Approximately 4.17 acres was filled under Action 199300379. The
remaining 4.25 acres of impact identified in this PCN is proposed and the subject of this PCN
under NWP 26.
Attached for your review is a permit application package, which includes the following:
• A joint application form for NWP #26.
• A letter stating that this site is eligible for authorization under the nationwide general permit for
headwaters and isolated waters discharges.
• A site location map.
• Notification letters to: USFW, NMFS, SHPO
• A Preliminary Mitigation Plan.
• A Village Green -- Wetlands Impact Map.
• A site location map of the Village Green Site and the Mitigation Site.
• A topographic map of mitigation site depicting wetland boundaries.
• A Soil Survey Map depicting the mitigation site.
• Wetland Delineation Data Sheets: Village Green Site, Mitigation Site
• A copy of the original permit approval.
Your prompt attention to this matters would be greatly appreciated. Should you require any
additional information please contact my office.
Si cerel?
J. Michael Stocks, PE
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer COE
Dr. Bob Pierce WSA
Wilmington District Engineer
file
enclosures
J M S/9214AC04.doc
841 South Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Tuesday, October 10, 1995
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
RE: Village Green Site -- Rocky Mount, NC
Joint Application Form for NWP #26
Dear Eric:
Inlnlnl
APoAn
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PA
CIVIL, MUNICIPAL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
BOBBY L. JOYNER, P.E.
J. MICHAEL STOCKS, P.E.

By affect of this letter and the attached joint application form, we are requesting approval to
impact 8.42 acres of wetland habitat for the construction of the Village Green Project.
Approximately 4.17 acres was filled under Action 199300379. The remaining 4.25 acres of
impact identified in this PCN is proposed and the subject of this PCN under NWP 26.
Attached for your review is a permit application package, which includes the following:
• A joint application form for NWP #26.
A letter stating that this site is eligible for authorization under the nationwide general permit
for headwaters and isolated waters discharges.
• A site location map.
• Notification letters to: USFW, NMFS, SHPO
• A Preliminary Mitigation Plan.
• A Village Green - Wetlands Impact Map.
• A site location map of the Village Green Site and the Mitigation Site.
• A topographic map of mitigation site depicting wetland boundaries.
• A Soil Survey Map depicting the mitigation site.
• Wetland Delineation Data Sheets: Village Green Site, Mitigation Site
• A copy of the original permit approval.
Your prompt attention to this matters would be greatly appreciated. Should you require any
additional information please contact my office.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Stocks, PE
cc: Mr. John Dorney DEM
Dr. Bob Pierce WSA
Wilmington District Engineer
file
enclosures
J M S/9214AC03.doc
841 South Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tuesday, October 10, 1995
Wilmington District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attn: CESAW-CO-E
RE: Village Green Site -- Rocky Mount, NC
Joint Application Form for NWP #26
Dear Sir/Madame:
Innirr4
LJ H U H
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PA
CIVIL, MUNICIPAL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
BOBBY L. JOYNER, P.E.
J. MICHAEL STOCKS, P.E.

By affect of this letter and the attached joint application form, we are requesting approval to
impact 8.42 acres of wetland habitat for the construction of the Village Green Project.
Approximately 4.17 acres was filled under Action 199300379. The remaining 4.25 acres of
impact identified in this PCN is proposed and the subject of this PCN under NWP 26.
Attached for your review is a permit application package, which includes the following:
• A joint application form for NWP #26.
• A letter stating that this site is eligible for authorization under the nationwide general permit
for headwaters and isolated waters discharges.
• A site location map.
• Notification letters to: USFW, NMFS, SHPO
• A Preliminary Mitigation Plan.
• A Village Green - Wetlands Impact Map.
• A site location map of the Village Green Site and the Mitigation Site.
• A topographic map of mitigation site depicting wetland boundaries.
• A Soil Survey Map depicting the mitigation site.
• Wetland Delineation Data Sheets: Village Green Site, Mitigation Site
• A copy of the original permit approval.
Your prompt attention to this matters would be greatly appreciated. Should you require any
additional information please contact my office.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Stocks, PE
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer COE
Mr. John Dorney DEM
Dr. Bob Pierce WSA
file
enclosures
J M S/9214AC02.doc
841 South Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TECHNOLOGIES
Date: October 16, 1995
Company: Water Quality Planning Job Number
P.O. Box 29535 Project:
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 Subject:
Contact: Mr. John Dorney
Landmark Center 1
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 209
Raleigh, NC 27609-5210
1295061 [phone]
Fax Number
[phone]
y? iz"Im l a L?-{ 1ll; ar i l ?jii
1 co Letter ( Action ID: 199300379of Feb. 6, regarding fill on
4.1.7 acre tract.
6 copies Joint Application Form of NWP #26
1 co Joint Application Form of NWP #26 delivered to John Dorne
Thursday, October 12, 1995.

? In accordance with your request
? For your review
[V]? For processing
? Plans reviewed and accepted
? Plans reviewed and accepted as noted
? For revision by you
? For your use/files
? Please call when ready
? Please return to this office
? Approval requested
? Conference requested
at your convenience
cc: Files
Enclosure
KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ENGINEERS and PLANNERS
Steven F. Stokes
Environmental Scientist
U0 BAraivteee.e. D Co?+aruac-Te?vG
COMPANY
231 1 North Man Sued, P O 00z 1529
iartxoro. North C volwv 27686
919623 1021 Fas 919 82301 3 7
October 10, 1995
Mr. Mike Stocks, P.E.
Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A.
P O Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804-0966
Re: Wetlands Mitigation Site
41 1 /2 Acres
Reges Store Road, SR 1601
Nash County, NC
Dear Mike:
Per your request concerning the above referenced project, Barnhill Contracting
Company would be able to mobilize on the above referenced project within two weeks of
receipt of a approved wetland permit. As discussed, it is my understanding that
approximetaly 10-15,000 c. yds. of material will need to be excavated and bermed along
the upland portion of this project. Given the earthwork volumes discussed and suitable
weather conditions, we feel that it will take approximately 30-60 days to perform the
earthwork operations required for this project.
We look forward to working with you on this project and hope to be notified to
proceed in the near future. In the meantime, should you require any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours very truly,
BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY
4,26 . 115r-J?
Allen Barnhill
Vice President
AB/mis
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
December 21, 1995
Mr. Robert Pierce
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P. O. Box 1022
Poolesville, 1\11) 20837-0099
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Re: Village Green Project
401 Water Quality Certification
DEM r 951103
7 7
Thank you for your letter of 18 December 1995 concerning the above mentioned
project. While we await the economic analysis you have described, I would like to clarify a
few points. First, it was a simple oversight that you were not copied on our letter of 12
December 1995. Second, the determination of significant uses was done onsite with you
using DEM's wetland rating system. Third, our tentative decision of moving toward denial is
based on the presence of a practicable alternative. The fact that the previously agreed upon
required mitigation had not been done is a matter to be resolved regardless of the outcome of
this permit decision. Fourth, as you are aware the COE's permit issuance for this project
does not necessarily mean that they agree that there is no practicable alternative. Since it is a
Nationwide permit, the COE's ability to require a detailed analysis of practicability is
constrained. Finally please send the economic analysis to me and I will ensure it's timely
review.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Joh R. Dorney
cc: Danny Smith, Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, COE
Central Files
Owen Anderson, WRC
951103.mem
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativ© Action Employer 50% recycled/ 101 host-con-umor paper
A4:,: ?01 o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 12, 1995
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
The Tuscarora Group
P. O. Box 912
Rocky Mount, N.C. 27802
Project # 951103
Dear Mr. Gorham:
1
j d ° o
F1
f F
The Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section has reviewed your plans
for the discharge of fill material into (an additional ) 3.07 acres of waters and/or wetlands located at
US 64 and NC 301 in Nash County for construction of a commercial area. Based on this review, we
have identified significant uses which would be removed by this project. These uses are water storage,
stream bank stabilization, pollutant removal and wildlife habitat. Furthermore, insufficient evidence is
present in our files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands.
Therefore, we are moving toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC 2B.0109.
Until we receive additional information, we are requesting (by'copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of Coastal Management place your project on
administrative hold.
We have reviewed your economic analysis entitled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, N.C." (received on 8 November 1995). Your analysis
purports to show that the only practicable alternative for this site is to construct the Wal-Mart
Supercenter, Circuit City and three out parcels along NC 301. The development of the Wal-Mart
(only) would result in a loss of $ 804 per acre (total loss of $ 463,908). However according to your
data, the construction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter and Circuit Center on this site (i.e., no out-parcels)
would result in a net revenue of $ 1352 per acre (for a total revenue of $ 78,010). We believe that the
construction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter and Circuit City would be a practicable alternative since a
net revenue gain would result from this design. The fact that we have already approved a large
amount of wetland fill previously on this site and your failure to begin the mitigation which was
required in the previous approval are also relevant to this decision. From our calculations it appears
that about another 0.75 acre of wetland fill will be needed to complete the Wal-Mart Supercenter,
Circuit City and required stormwater facilities.
Mitigation will still be required to account for this additional fill as well as the previous fill.
The mitigation site discussed with Mr. Pierce would suffice. However as we discussed in the field, the
"enhancement" portion of the plan will not be "credited" by DEM since it has minimal water quality
value and (according to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission) has minimal wildlife value. The
creation and preservation portion of this site would be acceptable assuming that the tract is either
donated to a public entity or it's development is controlled via a conservation easement. A final
mitigation and onsite stormwater management plan must be approved by DEM before construction
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
mitigation and onsite stormwater management plan must be approved by DEM before construction
begins on the US 64/NC 301 site. Any documentation such as maps and narrative that you can supply
to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401 Certification.
Please respond within two weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to me
and one copy to Mr. Danny Smith at the Raleigh Regional Office at 3800 Barrett Drive, Post Office
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
qeJ?ohR. Dorn ey
r Quality Certification /rograrn
cc: Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Wilmington Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
Steve Stokes; KCI Technologies
Michael Stocks; Appian Engineering
Frank McBride; NC Wildlife Resources Commission 951103.nty

?75 e
N 7 Y ..
Z/

V/
A
A

A
s
b o

oX 0

W N
v I••d .+?
FS A
N
1" On OTA KIT

To / !
Date
v?i WHILE YOU Time
ERE OUT
of
Phone
7
92
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources

AQ-
AA
rQe? ? ?j ? c?' I S - n-0_ ?, WCAll
z
OAA,
4
IJKZ rvlu
Oil/ v\14-?
VY\
6A
(??Nc

lU?

&V

C1t4? W)Aalf-5
F4-
n? s .i
c Ip ?^rc - ea JC,? -
CA "2O-*
?s

01? lV?'-._ ? ?? ?+?G? Lf, /?/JUG
?OV?s??F t:kkven?c?PSp I ?IU U ?
do V,.I?,
C61/s
0
/14-
a
25 c /
Woo
5??-es
-lfflwl'
[.W4 a
?f
ai& -
W??vQ
I -?
OLA
t6' ?16oI
?1
L?
41
Joint Application Form
for
VILLAGE GREEN SITE
Rocky Mount, N.C.
Submitted to: US ACOE & NC DEM
r.
October 10, 1995
Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A.
841 S. Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
PO Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
:l
7
0
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
D Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 26
JOINT FORM FOR
Q Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name:
Mr- Robert D. Gorham- -Tr-
2. Owners Address: The Tuscarora Corp . P. 0 . Box 912, Rocky Mount, NC 27802
3. Owners Phone Number (FAX [phone] (Work): 919-443-7041
4. If AppIieable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
t.TPrl^nr? SrianrP Annl;nar;nns Tnr Attn Robert J Pierce
P .0. Box 1022 [phone]
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-1022
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Nash
Nearest Town or City: Rocky Mount
Specific, Location (Include road. numbers, landmarks,. etc.): The southwest quadrant of the intersection
of US H 301 B Pa§s and US H 64 lust north of Stony Creek
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Stony Creek
7. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico River Basin
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [) NO k]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES ] NO [ ]
If yes, explain. Action ID. 199300379 NWP6 14 (0.06) & 26 (4.11 acres)
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: ± 15 acres
of wetlands including those filled under 199300379;. excluding Stony Creek
11. Number of acres of waters of the J.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 4.19 (additional 4.17 impacted under 199300379)
Drained: None
Flooded: None
Excavated: 0.06
Total Impacted: 4-25 (Total with previous fill 8.42)
D
12. Description of proposed.work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only): Develop a commercial
center featuring one large anchor, a smaller professional building, necessary
parking and associated stormwater management facilities.
a 13. Purpose of proposed work: Provide ± 200, 000 SF of highly visible commercial space and
associated infrstructure
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. The proposed user of the anchor store needs a large, high-,
e retail facility. Intersection of U.S. 301 and 64 among best in RM. *

15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [x] NO[
]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected-by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property. Enclosed
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project. N/A
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line. Enclosed. Delineation approved by COE on 8/29/95
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy. Under separate cover
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Commercial
F.. If applicable, what is proposed method-of sewage disposal? City sewer (Rocky Mount)
2? a
Owner's Signature
F
€i
nd
Date
* Numerous attempts were made to fit facility onsite with less impact to waters of
US.

0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY c-
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 50-
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 „
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
August 2, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Wetland Determination, Action ID. 199300379
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
c/o The Tuscarora Corporation
P.O. Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
On June 20, 1995, Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of my Raleigh Field office
regulatory staff met with your engineer, Mr. Michael Stocks, and Mr. Robert
Pierce of Wetland Science Applications, on your property adjacent to Stony
Creek at Uie southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 301 and US 54
Bypass, in Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. The purpose of the site
inspection was to review a preliminary wetland determination on the property
and to determine the portion of the property that would be considered adjacent
to Stony Creek for the purpose of the applicability of a nationwide general
permit.
Mr. Pierce's preliminary wetland determination indicated that the
wetlands on the site to the north of the floodway line are associated with
defined channels that are tributary to Stony Creek. These wetlands are not
part of a large continuum of waters or wetlands extending from Stony Creek,
nor does Stony Creek have the greatest hydrologic influence or exchange with
these wetlands. Therefore, these wetlands are not considered adjacent to
Stony Creek, and impacts within these wetlands north of the floodway line are
eligible for authorization under the nationwide general permit for headwaters
and isolated waters discharges.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Alsmeyer, telephone (919)
876-8441, extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Mgmt.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
"Appian Consulting Engineers
Attn: Mr J Michael Stocks
Po Box 7966
Rocky Mount NC 27804-0966

Printed on n Recycied Paper
S .(
CDCUUNE OF SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD
RIGHT Of WAY IS NASWEDGECOMSE COUNTY UNE
TO LEGGETT v
ROCKY MOUNT E POP' 24,205
POP 41,283 oGECOMet 7.079]]
NASro COUNTY
NORTH, CAROLINA
PREPARED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS-PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SCALE
1 D 1 23 torus
O 0-5 1 MILE
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
LEGEND
PRIMITIVE OR UNI APROVEO ROAD
GRADED AND DRARNED ROAD
SOR, GRAVEL,OR STONE SURFACED ROAD
HARD SURFACED ROAD
?•?•? A LANE UNOIVDED HIGHWAY
OIVDED NIGN-Y
HIGHWAY WITH FRONTAGE ROADS

IA. FULECONTRO ACCESS

IAP FEDEIAA AD INTERSTATE ROAD
FAS FEDERAL AD PRIMARY ROAD
FEDERAL AD SECONDARY ROAD
IAV
NS
FEDERAL AID URBAN
FION-SYSTEM ROAD ,
IMP - PROJECTED LOCATION
INTERSECTION DISTANCE
TufFIC CIRCLE
HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
DETAILED HIGHWAY WTEKHANGE
C /p
v NTERSTATE HIGHWAY
70 V.S. NUMBERED HIGHWAY
B U, S. NUMBERED BICYCLE ROUTE
A} NC. NUMBERED HIGHWAY
N.C. NUMBERED BICYCLE ROUTE
Q INTERSTATE NTEICHANGE NUMBER
1100 SECONDARY ROAD NUMBER
ttt , UN ICAGRCKIND CABLE
--1-*- RAILROAD. ANY HUMBLE Of TUCKS
USED BT SNGtE OPERATING COA FANY
RAILROAD, ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
USED BY MORE THAN ONE OPERATING
COMPANY ON SAME OR ADJACENT
RIGHTIOF-WAY
RAILROAD STATION
i GRADE CROSLNG
UNDERPASS
OWIPASS
RAILROAD TUNNEL
O ARMY. NAVY,OI MARRAl CORPS FIELD
O COMM. OR MUNICIPAL "PORT
+ MARKED AUXILIARY FIELD
HANGAR ON FIELEj7 B- N SYMBOL
{,?.•. NI FREE OR IOU FERRY
d OONTHOUSE
COAST GUARD STATION
CANAL
NARROW STREAM
WIDE STREAJA
DAM WITH LOCK
DAM
O RESERVOIR. FOND, OR LAKE
5765 PROMINENT PEAK- NUMERALS
INDICATE ELEVATION
_ ROAD THROUGH MOUNTAIN PASS
HIGHWAY BRIDGE.OVER 70 FT.
DEW VAN ON BRIDGE
tel.:-T- HIGHWAY TUNNEL
1= FORD
?•'? STATE UNE
A
-- - COUNTY LINE
OTT LIMITS
R[SERVATION OR PARK BOUNDARY
INSET AREA
i
.
^?^'- UNINCORPORATED CENSUS
.....
? ..,. DESIGNATED PEACE
Q COUNTY SEAT
O OTHER TOWNS AND VILLAGES
o TRIANGULATION STATION
INCORPORATED CITY OR VISAGE.
(GEHUAUEED)
j SCHOOL
i CHURCH
j CHURCH WITH CEMETERY
• •
•T•
• • CEMETERY
? HOSPITAL
R CORRECTIONAL OR PENAL NSTN
¦ HIGHWAY GARAGE OR MANT. YARD
Q HIGHWAY DIV. OR MT. OFFICE
d WEr STATION
* PATROL STATION
A LEST ARE
O MONUMENT-SMALL HISTORICAL SM
I
0
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
October 6, 1995
Ms. Kathryn T. Looney
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Looney:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form, a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of
your office's response to that notice. The COE subsequently authorized that project under
NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Pie ce, Ph.D.
President
Encl. as

i FIR-,
0
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
WS A P.O. Box 1022
Q INC Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
-? [phone]
October 6, 1995
Mr. Charles Oravetz
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Rivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Dear Mr. Oravetz:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form, a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. The COE subsequently authorized that project
under NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Pi rce, Ph.D.
President
Encl. as

-10-
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
October 6, 1995
Mr. David Brook
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form, a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of
your office's response to that notice. The COE subsequently authorized that project under
NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
`"
Robert J. Pi rce, Ph.D.
President
Encl. as
- 11 -
0
0
Preliminary Mitigation Plan
Village Green, Rocky Mount, NC
Introduction
The Village Green project will impact a total of 8.42 acres of mixed
hardwood/softwood wetland habitat. Approximately 4.17 acres was filled under Action
199300379. Mitigation approved under the previous authorization included the construction
of 1.09 acres of wetlands and 0.59 acres of nonwetland waters. For reasons explained in a
letter dated February 6, 1995 from J. Michael Stocks (Appian Consulting Engineers, PA) to
Eric Alsmeyer and because of the change in project purpose identified in this PCN, that
mitigation has not been constructed. The remaining 4.25 acres of impact identified in this
PCN is proposed and the subject of this PCN under NWP 26.
O When the need arose to seek additional authorization under NWP 26, we realized that
one, large, comprehensive mitigation package covering all of the impacts of the entire project
would provide much greater ecological benefits than fragmented smaller units of habitat
Q development. Because the balance of the project site that is not to be disturbed consists
primarily of mature hardwood forest (both upland and wetland), only limited onsite
compensatory mitigation is ecologically appropriate.
Corps regulations at 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, C. 13. (f)(2) state in part "To the
extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation banking and other forms of
mitigation including contributions to wetland trust funds, which contribute to the restoration,
creation, replacement, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands. Furthermore, examples of
mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include but are not limited to: reducing the
size of the project; establishing buffer zones to protect aquatic resource values; and replacing
the loss of aquatic resource values by creating, restoring and enhancing similar functions and
values." The mitigation plan that we now propose includes three elements: preservation,
construction and enhancement.
Preservation
Except for an existing sanitary sewer easement right-of-way, the land south of the
Proposed Floodway (Figure 1) is mature, hardwood forest. It consists of a mix of both
wetlands and nonwetlands. This area consisting of 26 acres directly contiguous to Stoney
Creek will be set aside for perpetual preservation by permanent deed restrictions. With the
exception of possible future actions designed to enhance the resources natural attributes, all
activities (including logging} will be expressly prohibited. If a willing and suitable resource
agency or conservancy organization can be identified, the land will be deeded over, fee
simple.
0

N.
Construction/Enhancement
Onsite - To meet the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), stormwater
from the entire facility will be channelled through an onsite facility. The footprint identified
for the Storm Water Management Facility in Figure 1, has been sized large enough to allow
for the construction of wetlands within its confines. Since some of the natural functions of the
wetlands being impacted are to desynchronize flood waters and to enhance water quality by
increasing sedimentation and the removal of nutrients and waterbom pollutants, incorporation
of wetland features into stormwater facilities is a logical design element to replace lost
function. While innovative planting of wetland vegetation in stormwater facilities have been
used successfully in other regions of the country, their use in the Rocky Mount area has been
limited.
Two conceptual designs will be explored with DEM. The first will be a retention
facility with a wide shallow bench on the perimeter planted with species typical of
semipermanent wetland conditions. The second possible design will be a temporary detention
facility that is completely vegetated with species typical of seasonal wetlands which can
withstand brief periods of inundation and longer periods with saturated or drier conditions.
The modification of the stormwater facility is considered to be a demonstration project.
Wetlands developed through this design have not been incorporated into the calculation of
mitigation ratios.
Offsite - Because of the limited opportunity to replace habitat functions onsite, we
sought offsite opportunities that would provide ecologically sound compensation for the loss
of 8.42 acres of waters of the United States. Our goal was to provide a meaningful
contribution to wildlife habitat as close to the project site as possible. Guidance from the
Corps field officer indicated that restoration of a previously drained wetland area would be
most desirable.
We contacted the NRCS offices of Nash, Shelton Hull and Edgecombe Counties (Mr.
A. B. Whitley) in an attempt to find prior converted cropland (PC) that might be suitable for
mitigation. A 150-acre farm in Tarboro, NC owned by Mr. Bellmont Murphrey was
identified. While the farm is for sale, the Corps field officer indicated that its location 25 - 30
miles from Rocky Mount is too far.
Mr. Whitley also identified two other sites that had been clear-cut 2 - 4 years ago and
overseeded with loblolly pine. Both are revegetating naturally and are further distance from
the project site than the proposed mitigation site.
In addition to the sites discussed above, we also contacted the U.S. Department of the
Interior concerning the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina.
e

I
While the Refuge staff were receptive to further discussions of a cash contribution or other
form of mitigation support for needed restoration work, the Corps field officer indicated that
it was not a preferable option because of the distance from Rocky Mount.
The proposed mitigation site is a 41.5 acre tract that was clear-cut earlier this year. It
is approximately 5 linear miles from the project site (Figure 2) on Reges Store Road (Figure
3). The property is bounded on the east by Pig Basket Creek at a point only 1500 feet from its
confluence with Stoney Creek and, thus, is in the same watershed as the project. A 130-feet
wide CP&L easement crosses the rear of the property from northwest to southeast.
Approximately 12 acres are located northeast of the CP&L easement.
A delineation was conducted on the property in September 1995 and revealed that
approximately 22 acres qualifies as wetlands under the 1987 Corps Manual. Wetland limits
are depicted on Figure 4. As indicated . there is a good interspersion of wetland and
nonwetland with a over a mile of wetland/nonwetland edge. Much of the area has been
logged. Stumps remain in place. The logged area has been overseeded with loblolly pine.
Three soils are mapped (Allison 1989) for the area and their presence has been field
verified (see data sheets, Appendix M1). A portion of soil map sheet 8 depicting the property
is provided as Figure 5. Wetland areas are found on Meggett loam, frequently flooded and
Tomotley fine sandy loam. These are the same soils as underlay the wetlands that will be
impacted by the Village Green Project. The higher reaches of the tract are underlain by
Altavista sandy loam, 0 - 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded. Altavista has a listed seasonal high
water table of 1.5 to 2.5 feet from December to March. Nleggett and Tomotley both have a
seasonal high water table of 0 - 1.0 feet from November to April and December to March,
respectively. Meggett floods frequently for long duration from December to April while
Tomotley only floods rarely. On September 9, 1995, at a time when groundwater should be at
its seasonal low elevation, it was observed at 60 inches below the surface in the Altavista and
Meggett soils and at 56 inches below the surface in the Tomoteey soils.
If left in its existing state, the site will become a loblolly pine plantation with an
intermix of red maple and sweetgum in the overstory. After sufficient years of growth, the
area would be clear-cut and the process begun again. While this scenario does provide some
habitat value, we believe that habitat functions can be greatly increased by active
management.
Our plan involves several elements. First the entire property would be purchased from
the current owners (we hold an option to buy). Active management as described below would
be completed by May 1996. If a willing and suitable resource agency or conservancy
organization can be found, the property will be deeded, fee simple, to it. Alternatively,
Cft permanent deed restrictions would be placed on the title prohibiting in perpetuity all
disruptive practices except for selective harvesting consistent with sound forest management
and wildlife practices. In either case a monitoring program will be established to follow the
0 -3-
0
tract until we document three consecutive years with at least an average of 320 healthy trees
per acre (<10 % softwoods) with no more than an average of 20 percent by any one species.
At any point that survival drops below the specified density, replanting will be conducted.
Initial Management - Soil disturbance will be kept to a minimum. Most of the
loblolly seedlings will be removed. Occasional groves will be retained for diversity. Four
moat-like linear depressions will be excavated either by conventional equipment or placed
explosive charges and planted to create semipermanent to permanent flooded wetland
conditions. These will be constructed in the nonwetlands immediately adjacent to the western
and northern wetland boundaries. All excavated materials will be removed to and contoured
3 on the upland to provide additional relief. The perimeters of these depressions will be planted
with shrub species (e.g., alder, dogwood, willow) to promote thickets suitable for passerine
bird nesting. The depressions will provide habitat for amphibians and waterfowl that
currently is lacking on the property. Approximately 5 acres of depressional wetlands will be
constructed..
The portion of the tract from the road to the CP&L easement will be planted with a
variety of native species. In the lower reaches along the eastern edge of the property, bald
cypress and tupelo will predominate. In the intermediate elevations a mix okp oak water
oak, willow oak, and green ash, will be planted. At the interface between the `wetlands and
nonwetlands, river birch, sycamore, persimmon and American holly will be added to the mix.
Occasional groves of eastern cottonwood and/or black willow will be planted to provide some
rapid growing species of short life-span that will produce cavity nesting habitat. The highest
elevation upland buffers will be planted with red and white oaks and American holly. No
more than 20 percent of the trees will be of one species. All of the land to the northeast of the
CP&L easement will be allowed to revegetate naturally.
Continuing Management - During the period after initial management is completed
until the monitoring program is concluded, the tract will be managed to enhance the growth
of desirable species. Throughout the property scattered volunteers of red maple and sweet
gum will be retained at densities of less than 20 percent. Other hardwood volunteers will be
retained. Undesirable volunteers will be culled by hand at yearly intervals. Replanting of
desirable species will be implemented as needed when the average total numbers of trees per
acre drops below 320 and/or species diversity drops and one species constitutes more than 20
percent of the average total.
Monitoring
An as built report will be submitted to the COE within 30 days of completion of the
initial management activities.
L-5 Monitoring will be conducted annually for the period from after initial management
plans are completed until three successive years with at least an average of 320 trees per acre
and no more than 20 percent of any one species are recorded.
o
51
U-'
Hydrology will be monitored with three automated recording monitoring wells
installed at strategic locations. Ground and surface water elevations will be recorded on a
daily basis.
Vegetation will be sampled annually each fall in 22 randomly positioned 0.05 acre
plots. Numbers and species identification of all healthy trees in each plot will be recorded.
Permanent photostations will be established at the beginning of the monitoring
program. Photographs at each station will be taken during each monitoring event.
A monitoring report will be submitted to the COE within 30 days of each monitoring
event.
Final Design Specifications
Prior to beginning construction of the proposed Village Green project, final mitigation
design specifications, species list and planting scheme and planting schedule will be provided
to the COE for final approval.
Mitigation Areas and Ratios
Onsite Preservation (wetland & buffer) 26 3.09:1
Stormwater Enhancement
Offsite W viand Construction 5 0.60:1
Offsite Wetland Enhancement 17 2.02:1
Offsite Buffer Enhancement 9 1.07:1
Offsite Wetland Preservation 5 0.60:1
Offsite Buffer Preservation 5 0.60:1
Overall Mitigation Totals 68 7.98:1
Final Mitigation Plan
0

This is a preliminary mitigation plan. It remains flexible to accommodate any
practicable modifications that the COE believes will improve it. The final plan will be
completed after authorization under NWP 26 of the Village Greens revised project. No new
construction work on the Village Green project will commence until after approval of the
final mitigation plan by the COE.
-5-
-?• 30
U
I vIES??y p ??
/ C4

i
7
L'
I <3 </
,qv \ ?\
C

? S
r
r?
1
i
'T
' Q 4
ov ?
w
O
V
4
rQ
?u
0

i Q
CO
-z?

¦? I
W-!
cc
0
OUR-
P
a
1
1
(` a

f2.
e?
V/
L!

0
0
00
a 4
? o
CL °
N ?d
0
co
0
0
LO
O
N
°
0
N
h
m W?

a U
y
c ? I
O

Q ? r \\
W
1
Ow
\
zw

wwc?'
4
D
p
l
rc
-
IL
00- S

!u 3
e
a°
B?
D`
0
D
e
MIN
0
e
e
s
e
s
e
e
? •--- 3:i 1Sls _
.e LIU =? / (1? ? DORTCEIE ?? }} A iAA10i
Fv F
MITIGATION SITE f
LII4!?
Ef41 ??lp •3
?! I
fAI
2.] 1 O
Un v 1011 :.
a 17 70 7 V Y
AS s:
yN A ! 'I+no 1
».
?• w.Fll
,K VILLAGE 1GREEN SITE
7?
I7 7 \
IJ •? 2.1 - o
s li?l Mj e ? Sl
• 1706 10T i:'•7.0 I"' ?
?/ e v ssQt F1V
C&MLRK Of SEABOARD SYSTEM LUUIOAD
RIGHT Of WAY IS HASH-EDGECOMtE COUNTY IRK
-- N
OCKY MOUNT E POE' 24.2DSl
I
N" POP. 41,263 DGECOAIDE 17,078]
•: r-
6L O
ASS COUNTY
NORTH, CAROLINA
PREPARED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS-PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SCALE
1 D 1 2 3 aM=
0 05 1 MILE
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
Figure 2. Location of Village Green project site and Reges Store Road miti gation site.
LEGEND

MWRM OR UNMIROV[D ROAD
INTERSTATE .*--A' O
ARMT, NAVT,O[ AVRRINE CORPS FIELD
-
COUNTY EWE

GRADED
AND DRAINED ROAD
GRA O COIN OR MUNKIPAE AIRPORE ... CITY LIMITS
GAVEL RSTON9 SURFACED ROAD
AAVE 70 U.S NUM?ERED HIGHWAY + MARRED AVKRART FIELD RESERVATION OR PARK BOUNDARY
HARD
C[D ROAD
RD
RFA I HANGAR ON FIELTI('?- N SYMtOE)
IANt
I
DE HIGHWAY 8 U, S. NUMEERED $ CYCLE ROUTE FREE OR TOLE FERRY INSET AREA
UNINCORPORATED CENSUS

D111DE0 HIGHWAY
N2
N<NVM6(RfD HIGHWAY 4
IIGHIHOVSf DESIGNATED
DESIGNATED IIACf
HIGHWAY WITH FRONTAGE ROADS COAST GUARD STATION O COUNTY
SEAT

E C A
}•??
p
N.C. NVMeERED BKYCE( ROUTE
CAN.(
O
O OTHER
wN1 AND VILLAGES
OTHER
1O

F AI fVLECONTROt ACCESS '
f
`J NARROW STREAM a TRIANGULATION STATION

r.r FEDERAL AD M([$TAi[ ROAD
O MERSTAtE INTERCHANGE HUNKER
WOE STREAM
INCgPORATED CITY OR vauGE
FEDERAL AID PIH AAIT ROAD (GENERAECED)
FAS
FEDERAL AD SECONDARY LOAD 1100 SECONDARY ROAD NWABER
DAM WITH lOC[

V
FEDERAL AD URMN
R 1F6
IRNEIGOIMD CAVE u I(
TT i scN
N
--3'-
"O/ SYSTEM ROAD
-
RAILROAD, ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
1 DAM
+
CHURCH
r.r USED BY SINGLE OPERATING COMPANY Q^ RES[RVg4, PONO,OR LAKE 1 CHURCH WITH CEMETERY

?M ItOIECTED LOCATION

MERSECTION DISTANCE RAILROAD
, ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
•'
176]
PROMWEM PLR, NUMERALS

,••
CEMRERY
USED BT MORE THAN ONE OPERATING - INDICATE ELEVATION ? HOSPITAL
TRAFFIC CIRCLE COMPANY ON SAME OR AMACENT
[IGHIS.OF.WAT
O
PENAL NSM.
CORRECTIONAL
ROAD THIOVGE MOUNTAIN PASS D G
HIGHWAY GARAGE OR MANY. TARO

/1 -
? HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
- RAILROAD STATION
GRADE CROSSING t
?T?•
HIGHWAY "LDGE.OVER 20 R.

HIGHWAY
HIGHWAY
OR dSt, OFFICE

?
?

DETAILED HIGHWAY ME[CwwG(

l1NDFnASS

DRAW SIAN ON BRIDGE d STATION
WEIGHT
O

OVERPASS * PATROL STATION

RAILROAD TUNNE( I- HIG.WAY TUNNEL REST AREA
FORD O MONIMEM-SMALL HISTORICAL SITE
?'?? STATE LINE
U
W T
O
0
° zcTn oo<
cz ? ?, d
z ?
7W 0•1 111NnOw .(xOOY I ^ (Y„ CL
r N
2CL c
LAJ
LLJ
C) 0
Cl)
U) z
cli
15, 0
\1 zti -?? -1\ •??
FiFill 9
Cam, ?,? C.?=\? ;-„ •?•o
J/ h n / / o \? ? '?r •
N
00 ' ,
G. S - - - r,
fJ `? 0?°?. ?? L `9 7
Lu, U)
it C V a 'r?
m LO
L) m
^ \ co Z
V W! r ? Z 0?3 -v O to
_ . L
11 0 '0
53 (1) Lr)
?> n C? uIn
7' j(C 1 • v s ° E =° 'Q & z
i
to E c z
%/ U5
n \?? p
p i I O ~ O
1171
•II II/ O _
O
cr o
N U
i'ce` .•U L??? l __ ??. :? :`? \ J .? 00 y Z
OU U L U
L ? i. !2 C C
? N C (A
E? O?
SCALE
1
0 200 400 500 600 700 800 ( 1
TOTAL SITE AREA © 41.5 Ac. W W
TOTAL SITE WETLANDS a 22.33 Ac. W W W W W W W W W W-
N 1.y?•2?. E / W W W W W W
^? ? W W W W W W W m
\ ?y1 W W W W W W3
\ I W W W W J ?
\ \ NO TOPOGRAPHICAL OR .r `?•
1 I \ \ 1 zI VirTLANDS DELENIATION
/!? I \ \ Q4Y?? ??\ ?I E•1,ST OF PONERUNE M c^
I I I ,1.1 \? V?? P \ y W WASEME,NT.z F h?
Q
i ! W \ QQ? ~l. W W W W W y 3^
i? 1+
_? W \\W W W W W
w w VI 71S
W '1 W •V?Oir W / ? W W '1C W W to U•
IN, .41
i\ '1Y ??.?_ \ ` / 111 ?/•
`?+?f'l1T` ?.` W W ?-J=-11• W W ` W V•-/ W W ?I: IIW `W??" \? W W ?
•? \ W W W J? W W W W W?W W W I` l W z1v~` ?'\ W h~6
?i
?l•
W W W W I, W \., W W W W W W W W 1 W `A ry?7"
13
??GJ?y, ? W W Y W W W W W `W ?'tit•.. W W W W? $ ?ZyZ•
•Yj ?. ( W W W W W W W W W W W W % W W W ? f? F ._
\>? W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ) W
r W W W W W W W W W W W W ?? W W W W Wj ???
W W W 0 W W W W W W W W W/
?@)P1, N, W W J• W W W W W W W "W``?y\ W W d• .? W W •Y JW?J' \
W w.
M A W W W W W I 1N -•?\ W W W W ? W W
M$ W W W W W `.V\ \\ W W W W
n N S I
I W y ?? W
eC tr `4 `Y •Y W W W W ? f D.
= W W W W W W W W? W W W
W W W W W W W W\ _ ?? W W W
\ W W .\\ W W W W W
W W W W W W y
`T' ?• W W W \ \ ` r ?7 \77
1j??i9 ? ?W W W W o \
0o JS' ) ?? ? W W W W W`
\ W W W W W f
NORTH
W W W W ?/t W`'\
W ??W W W W r ...
`?IIl --`? I / W W W /r ?`1Q•(j`
\ ? W W W -? r,?,P O
L r
? ` W W ?, p??'COr
M p
?? O W W e~?5 •
04
Ess
-__-- _ ---N _-_ VILLAGE GREEN
_
1_- W----N
22- 83'54'36' W-
5.60
'= -_-'-C-°-
-"??--.--= -_-- --- FIGURE 4
REGES STORE Rp? -"SR. 1601 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF MITIGATION SITE
DEPICTING WETLAND BOUNDARIES.
0 SHEET NUMBER 8
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NaC •
o
r'tr t(nC Wh cUrandF1/1 GoA
Vs ,L D6? t I 6w Ud
': ?,,,?t ., ? °.'•q 9., M'?c.??. k? qtr i'?,._.. ?.?'„• Tr..AIaC Ud Ud
t ? 1?'? - ?i^`•x _We8
"NOB v'?u.. •? t ti??ti Y. i'ce' ?.. - +.',`^-1 r?• BORROW' , , -QORROW PIT
?! ?`pR l > LTA i s? a GeC- con Iti
P7, IZ6
rr,i, p~ r,j_'a- Q N .h^ iJ'•c ?•;?_? <. d?r11r8 J-
t?.. - .^i! t ..a :rh. .? t i l?'.?}y Maw l;i? ?•'? _ ??a°r ,,i .rf ,? .. .
t .Y Y ti L Z 8 0
1N e8
ri
:Z a wsf ' t, i , ` GeC
e
15ot i.. ?' ?:+ a r 2 e8. GeC' W
Nr8
Gc8 r s? ,vJ6
i4 E ti ??-
q,~ ....5'_ i•'Ki`• .,? •`x"?"' f. ..i` 4y.? rt 4-r}:`* ,. Ar
x `a?? 4,3 y s?41NoA GeE1a*. 3? ate a?
J+ \: Y'.. R•: _71'..x? ?? - ?- i_.? \? ? !?}-_ 1 ? r?1r`" : '?.`},? r""r -vx ?,fi =?`".
Ud z "fU S P w ?To? J:k 'r •., i ^ r _i ?F1?`V
4.? E F tdnB -,rz .AaA.. ?t ~ 4 B T ••. `..,lr_• 4".`?• G "' -}L?.1_,`yr,.fr u?.
r''c A 3 L >r.C?.Lrj! f:?j0 1 - *.h ?JS ?`
r ?`}+s ??; ,?,, # 4. . ;S'' , yo„t ? ?!,?? ?i?i-Y?.. - ? ? yt' 11,.. R 5•? .7' .;. ? tL? •? y 4,;a"i- f ?,,+{'+ ?w' ?:5.,,•f' * .?
t` 't??p,a`?
r
? l ?'II?4,?^1 i?!?k,: . ?? ?jcFi `'f ? `rry_?: i ..t?:'??•?t.,;. -,_,_.,?.' ?,; ,??it Ge8 Ud
t4 _ 'k. ' a4 t{ f?i£Yr _.o. ?'t y:'? `s o''-S ?,+?s tq':?-•.. 'w.? GCB C8F
} n a - - ? s [ r ,. .
?g6 tY• h Ud
YF ?k a.,+?€T i?.? !• v?? ? r M ~ <? 1:? ? ? j"r3'-• ?.7 C&F
aA w ?-? i'f b Yi 4 ?('1? 1]'r ' BOB ?..s
7? F'' t n' y t .' Ud f t. l t?B
Od 41
v +? .
eE Ud.; 1p BOB ,
pf LL o
lB
NjO CtL
BOB M Y y J + 11, f ??J < ?. Ok ?:,' '
130B BOB Ra
K`.° ?. y J BoBa . e NOB r 4
3oB s r NrB O NOB Ik I iy. ;
#!B BOB}.
Bob t ?: ?i No8r
11 .I. y BOB . ? j 4 -. ?
u • O A
B C Lam , ` (• • 0 •R
'f7LVP R i
? ,? ?' r+,, ? a+°' ; + ?•iZ.,? S ,?w .No8
BOB ` RAILR }._.* `. yG0 , 4 NUB ?? '•1 j , ' b3P
FaB
BOB t* *F ?? L ,C? . ?? ?y,
Bob fF• - ``?, '?. Ls ,•+ ?? r8 •-r I ,':??r•.T'-°_'{-.?s.;.
MY
-% r
NoA y R
BOB BOt•
;?. '?• j ..i P -\"
WeC 'r T
NoB
Ra v ui t lS (' ., .
o
BOB tax f a NrB ) :.tj1• _ _ + Ud
LANDFILL
No8
WeC`„?Tw'?EkGOAy?., V3?GoA
0: 1
"or .1 A
e Figure 5. Portion of Map Sheet 8 from the Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina,
depicting location of mitigation site.
L
0
Appendix M1
Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
0

0
0 VILLAGE GREEN SITE
(US 64 & US 301 SITE)
I

La

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? rY-c-s) No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: 1
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ostr a Virsiniana l FACU`- 9. Ph tolacca americana 3 FACU
2. Pinus taeda l FAC 10. Parthenocissus uin uifolia 3 FAC
3. Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1 FACW 11. Toxicodendron radicans 3 FAC
4. Lisustrum sinense 2 FAC 12. Grass s p. 3
5. Ostr a virginiana 2 FACU- 13.
6. Vitis s p. 4 - 14.
7. Parthenocissus uin uefolia 4 FAC 15.
8. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 7017b
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photoaraphs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 29 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No Hydrology

SOILS
t`
a
r
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro fine sandy loam ,0-29o slopes Drainage Class: Moderately well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, siliceous, t hermic Aquic Paleudult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped T e? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) fMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 10YR4/3 none - Fine Sand Loam, I fgr
3"-7" A 10YR5/3 none Fine Sand Loam, t fgr
7"-12" BA 10YR6/4 none Sand Loam, 1 fsbk
12"-23" Btl 10YR6/4 IOYR5/6 F1F Sandv Clav Loam, 2msbk
23"-29" Bt2 10YR613 10YR5/6 FIF Sand Clay Loam, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - Hi-h Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: A & B Horizons - many fine roots

M WETLAND DETERNIINATION
0
e
e
e
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yeses- No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o' Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes No!
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes ,No.
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.
0
0
fl
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Coun : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:

K-
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes N ` Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: 2
(if needed, explain on reverse)

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. uercus hellos 1 FACW- 9.
2. Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1 FACW 10.
3. Li uidambar st raciflua 1 FAC+ 11.
4. Pinus taeda 1 FAC 12.
5. Ilex decidua 2 FACW- 13.
6. Smilax rotundifolia 4 FAC 14.
7. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 10017o
Remarks:
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs x Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June
and into July 1995.

r
q0 TT C
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Tomotlev Loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5" A 10YR5/1 none - Loam, If--r
5"-10" B[_1 10YR5/2 10YR5/6 F1D Sand Clay Loam, Ifsbk
10"-20" Btg2 10YR5/2 10YR5/6 C213 Sand Clay Loam, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Many pores - A horizon. B horizon - few fine and medium roots
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Yes,! No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ' e No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland es No
Hvdric Soils Present? <Yes) No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification PF01A
u
0
0
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes N Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 3
(if needed, explain on reverse)

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ost a virginiana 1 FACU- 9.
2. Fraxinus penns lvanica 1 FACW 10.
3. Morus rubra 2 FAC 11.
4. Crataeagus aestvalis 2 OBL 12.
5. Lonicera japonica 4 FAC- 13.
6. Bignonia ca reolata 4 FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 6017o
Remarks:
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 25 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrology
i
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
S
D
D
A
D
D
a

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Lynchburg Loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy siliceous th ermic Aeric Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes; No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 10YR5/3 - - Loam, If#
3"-10" E 10YR6/3 7.5YR5/6 FID Loam, lfor
10"-14" Btg 10YR6/2 10YR6/6 FIF Loam, lfsbk
14"-18" Btl 10YR6/4 10YR6/6 C2F SCL, 1 msbk
18"-25" Bt2 10YR6/4 10YR6/6, IOYR6/2 C2F SCL, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: A horizon - many fine roots
B horizon - many fine pores
No water at 25"
NFTLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Yes) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _01 Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes Noj
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes (IN o1
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.
0
0
Cam'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site.. Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (?'e) No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 4
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VF.GFTATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. uercus hellos I FACW- 9.
2. Pinus taeda 1 FAC 10.
3. Ulmus rubra 1 FAC 11.
4. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 12.
5. Cam psis radicans 4 FAC 13.
6. Ilex decidua 4 FACW- 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 100070
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 23 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June and
into July 1995.
i
o'
8
I SOILS
D
9
B
D
9
s
e
e
e
e
e

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Megget Loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, mixed, thermic Typic Albagualf Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2" A 10YR2/2 - - Loam, 1 f
2"-6" A2 10YR5/2 - - Loam, 1 f,r
6"-12" Btgl 10YR6/1 10YR5/6, 10YR6/3 F1F Loam, Ifsbk
12"-20" Btg2 10YR6/1 10YR5/6 C2f Clay Loam, 2fsbk
20"-23" Btg3 10YR6/1 10YR516 C2f Clay, Massive

Hydric Soil Indicators: '
Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: few fine roots.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? !Yes; No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? 1?' 'S No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland 'es' No
Hvdric Soils Present? 'Yes No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification - PFO1J.

0
0
0
0
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Coun : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (fe-) No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes OD Plot ID: 5
(if needed, explain on reverse)

9 VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 FACW 9. Lonicera japonica 4 FAC-
2. uercus hellos 1 FACW- 10. Eu atorium ca illifolium 3 FACU
3. Acer rubrum • 1 FAC 11.
4. uercus hellos 2 FACW- 12.
5. Dios ros virginiana 2 FAC 13.
6. Ulmus alata 1 FACU+ 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 15.
8. Cam psis radicans 4 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 7001o
Remarks:
0 HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 20 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrology
L

SOTI 4
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Moderately well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, loamy, siliceous, thermic Aquic Paleudult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? 'es No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors. Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stnicture, etc.
0-4" A - IOYR4/2 - - Loam, Ifor.
4"-10" BA 10YR5/3 - - Sand Loam, Ifsbk
10"-20" Bt 10YR5/6 10YR7/4 F1F Sand Clay Loam, 2fsbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histie Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes r@- Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes to
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes TTo
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.

r'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12195
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 6
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 FACW 9. Vitus s p. 4 -
2. Quercus hellos 1 FACW- 10.
3. Li uidambar st raciflua 1 FAC+ 11.
4. Ulmus rubra 1 FAC 12.
5. Ilex decidua 2 FACW- 13.
6. Rubus s p. 2 - 14.
7. Carex s p. 3 - 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia 4 FAC M.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-3. 10070
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs x Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 4 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June and
into July, 1995.

SOIIS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Tomotley loam Drainage Class: Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Yes) No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stnicture, etc.
0-4" A 10YR5/1 - - Loam, if .
4"-8" Btgl 10YR6/1 10YR5/6 C2F Sand Clay Loam, Ifsbk
8"-18"* Btg2 10YR6/1 10YR5/4 FIF Sand Loam, 2fsbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: *Oxidized root channels
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? (es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland (Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? es ` No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification - PF01A
0
0
MITIGATI SITE
(REGES STORE ROAD)
D
21
III

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8/95
Applicant/Owner- Appian Consulting Engineers Countv: Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (2Ca No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 1
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VRGRTATinN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
*1. Eu atorium ca illi olium 3 FACU 9. Fraxinus enns ivanica 2 FACW
*2. Eri eron canadensis 3 FACU 10. Acer rubrum 2 FAC
*3. Lactuca canadensis 3 FAC- 11. Red to (Agrostis alba) 3 FACW
4. Rosa multiflora 2 UPL 12. C ernus filiculmis 3 FACU+
5. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 13.
6. Juncus tenuis 3 FAC 14.
7. Pinus taeda 3 FAC 15.
8. Ludwigia alternifolia 3 OBL 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). > 509o
Remarks: *Dominant species within plot. Pinus taeda regenerating on site.
uYnR0 T.()GV
0
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Other Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in) Secondary Indicators (2 of more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 60 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Augered down to
a depth of 60 inches before water began seeping in.
Ll I
0
0
a
c
E-2
e
a
0
g
e
a
0
0
0
0
0
e
Qt ITT c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Megeett (variant) Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes No
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes No_)
Remarks:
This plot lacks sufficient wetland hydrology

SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: Appian Consulting Engineers Date: 9/8/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Project #: 1295044
County: Nash State: NC
Location: W. of SR1603 & 1601 and Pig Basket Creek, N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot 91
Soil Classification: Fine, mixed. thermic Topic Albagualfs
Soil Series: Meggett variant
AWT: 60.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 11.0" Slope: 2% Aspect: ---
Elevation: Drainage: Somewhat poorly Permeability: slow
I

r.
Vegetation: See data sheet #1
Borings terminated at 61 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH
(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERM NOTES
Al 0-2 IOYR 4/4 loam Ifgr mvfr mod
A2 2-6 IOYR 516 7.5YR616 fld loam Ifgr mfr mod m and c roots
E 6-11 10YR 6/4 loam lfsbk mfr mod
Btgl 11-16 1OYR6/2 IOYR6/3 ilf &
7.5YR5/6 c2d clay loam Ifsbk mfr mod
Btg2 16-29 10YR 6/1 7.5YR516 c2d clay loam 2msbk mfr mod
Btg3 29-35 NS 7.5YR5/6 c2d
& 10YR5/6 c2d clay 2msbk mfi low Mg. conc. - f
& c roots
Btg4 35-41 10YR6/l 10YR5/6 c2d clay 2msbk mfi low NS - in root
channels, Mg.
conc.
Cg 41-61 N16 10YR5/6 clay massive mfi v. slow Mg. conc.
(I OYR4/1)

Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben
DATE: 9/7/95

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? cy-5 No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a otential Problem Area? Yes GO-) Plot ID: 2
(if needed, explain on reverse)

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. T ha latifolia 3 OBL 9.
2. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Sci us atrovirens 3 OBL 11.
*4. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 12.
*5. Ludwi is alustris 3 OBL 13.
6. C emus e throrhizos 3 OBL 14.
7. Mimulus alatus 3 OBL 15.
*8. Pol ovum h dro i er 3 OBL 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). > 50%
Remarks: Dominant species within plot.
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 56 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Q
SOILS
D
d WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland es No
Hvdric Soils Present? 6es , No
Remarks:
This plot lacks sufficient wetland hydrology

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Tomotley sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Ochraguults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped T e? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #2
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: Appian Consulting Enl7ineers Date: 9/8/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Project #: 1295044
County: Nash State: NC
Location: W. of SR1603 & 1601 and PifZ Basket Creek. N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot #2
Soil Classification: Fine, loamv, mixed thermic Tvpic Ochraguults
Soil Series: Tomotlev sandv loam
AWT: 56.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 2-7" Slope: 0-1% Aspect: ---
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeab ility: slow
Vegetation: See data sheet 42
Borings terminated at 61 Inches

0
A
a

HORIZON DEPTH
(IN) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERM NOTES
A 0-2 10YR 3R S.loam t mgr mvfr mod
E 2-7 l OYR 5/3 10YR512 fl f
& 7.5YR6/6
fl d S.loam 1 fsbk mfr mod f and c roots
Mgl 7-12 IOYR 6/I 7.5YR5/6 flf loam Imbk mfr mod f and c roots
Btg2 12-25 10YR6/1 10YR6/6 c2f sc loam 2fsbk mfr mod slow med. roots
Btg3 25-32 10YR 511 10YR5/6 c2f clay loam 2fmsbk mfi slow
Bt.-4 32-42 10YR5/1 7.5YR5/6
c2d clay loam massive m6 slow Angular gravel
Btg5 42-55 10YR611 N6,10YR5/6 sc loam 2fsbk mfr mod
Cg 55-61 1OYR6/1 10YR516 loamy sand 2fsbk mfr rapid sand leases
(10YR4/1)

Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben DATE: 9/7/95
a
z

0
Q
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8195
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Countv: Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Communitv ID:
Is the site sisnificantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 3
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Eu atorium ca illifolium 3 FACU 9.
2. Fraxinus erns lvanica 2 FACW 10.
3. Pol gonum h dro i er 3 OBL 11.
*4. Lactuca canadensis 3 FAC- 12.
5. Stellaria media 3 FACU 13.
*6. Lonicera japonica 3 FAC- 14.
7. Juncus tenuis 3 FAC 15.
8. Pinus taeda 2 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). < 50%a
Remarks: Dominant species within plot
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 60 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: -- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Water table at
approximately 60 inches.
I?
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Altavista variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Pocrlv drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Aquic Hapludults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type.) es No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #3
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes No
H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks:
u
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: Appian Consulting Engineers Date: 9/7/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Project #: 1295044 County: Nash
State: NC
Location: W. of SR1603 & 1601 and Pig Basket Creek, N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot #3
Soil Classification: Fine - loamy, mixed thermic Aquic Hapludults
Soil Series: Altavista varient
AWT: 60.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 9.0" Slope: 2% Aspect: -
Elevation: Drainage: Somewhat Poorly Permeability: moderate
e
0
a
a
a
e

0
A
0
Vegetation: See data sheet #3
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH
(II`I) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERb1 NOTES
A 0-6 10YR 4/2 10YR4/4 flf S.loam lfmgr mvfr mod
BA 6-9 10YR 6/2 10YR5/6 c2f S.loam lmsbk mfr mod
Btl 9-15 10YR5/4 10YR5/6 c2f
& 6/1 c2f c. loam 2msbk mfr mod compacted, few
med roots
Bt2 15-33 10YR5/6 10YR6/1 flf cloam 2msbk mfr mod mica few mg.
stains, med,
roots
Bt3 33-60 10YR 5/6 10YR6/1 c2f d to c lfsbk mfi mod. slow Some gravel-44"
(few), root
channels are
gleyed 5GY4/1

Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben DATE: 9/7/95
9
Q
0
0
0
ORIGINAL PERMIT APPROVAL

0
0
11
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
WREPLYWERTO December 7, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300379 and Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 (Road crossing)
and 26 (Headwaters and Isolated Waters)
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
c/o The Tuscarora Corporation
P.O. Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
Reference your application of October 13, 1992, received November 4, 1992,
for Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material within
waters of the United States, causing the loss of a total of 4.17 acres of
wetlands (0.06 for road crossings and 4.11 for site development) adjacent to,
and above the headwaters of, an unnamed tributary to Stony Creek, for
construction of the proposed Village Green development, in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of US 64 and US 301 bypasses, in Rocky Mount,
Nash County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
b. the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was also provided for fills for roads
crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special
aquatic sites) provided:

0
0
0
-2-
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is limited to a filled
141
area of no more than one-third acre. Furthermore, no more than a total of 200
linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
C. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent
the restriction of, and to withstand, expected highflows and the movement of
aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a water of
the United States; and
e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the permittee
notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general
condition.
Q rYour work is authorized by these nationwide permits provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, and with the
measures stated in the enclosed August. 17, 1992 letter from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. These nationwide permits do not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management at [phone] regarding a State Water Quality Certification.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.

0
-3-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with enclosure):
Appiati Consulting Engineers, P.A.
A n.: Mr. Mike Stocks
VO. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Larry Odom
Nash County Planning Dept.
Nash County Agricultural Center, Rm. 111
Nashville, NC 27856
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
e
U11
GENERAL CONDITIONS
.,. 1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly
maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation
controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during
construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the
movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody,
including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water.
Nil
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or
other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and Case-by-case Conditions. The activity must comply with any
regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer and any
case specific conditions added by the Corps.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the
National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by
Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the
river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers
may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal
rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty
fishing and hunting rights.
9. Water Quality Certification. In certain states, an individual state
water quality certification must be obtained or waived.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal
zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived.
11. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-Federal permittees shall
notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might
be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on
the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of
i
0
C!

-2-
the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species
can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service.
12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect Historic Properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places
is authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of
33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District
Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to
believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the
location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State
Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see
33 CFR 330.4(g)).
13. Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is
repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank
stabilization.
Q 14. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is
directly related to a shellfish harvest activity authorized by nationwide
permit.
15. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist
of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material
discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
16. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable
at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer has approved
a compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.
17. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons
must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
18. obstructions of high Flows. To the maximum extent practicable,
discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or
expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary
purpose of the fill is to impound waters).
19. Adverse Impacts from Impoundments. If the discharge creates an
impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the
accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
0
D
-3-
20. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory
waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
21. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
The temporary placement of excavated or fill material in waters or wetlands
will be for the absolute minimum period of time necessary to accomplish the
work.
VOTES:
1. Qualification for and issuance of a nationwide permit does not relieve the
applicant of the need to obtain any other required State or local permits.
2. Should all or part of a proposed activity be located within an Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) as designated by the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission, a CAMA permit is required from the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management. Should an activity within or potentially
affecting an AEC be proposed by a Federal agency, a consistency determination
pursuant to 15 CFR 930 must be provided to the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management at least 90 days before the onset of the proposed activity.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Notification to the Wilmington District Engineer will be required, and the
applicant must receive written approval before starting work.
a. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer as early as
possible and shall not begin the activity:
(1) until notified by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed
under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the District or Division
Engineer; or
(2) if notified by the District or Division Engineer that an individual
permit is required; or
(3) Unless 30 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the
notification and the prospective permittee has not received notice from the
District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed
under the NWP may be modified, suspended or revoked only in accordance with
the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
b. The notification must be in writing and include the following information
and any required fees:

(1) Name, address and telephone number of the prospective permittee;

0
D
-4-
(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct
and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other
NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to
be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity; and
(4) A delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
2. Restoration plans, including a schedule for the restoration, shall be
submitted to the District Engineer at the time of notification.
3. The total width of the access corridor, excavation, and temporary fill
area is restricted to no more than 40 feet and must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. For site specific projects, such as foundation
construction for transmission towers, construction areas will be limited to no
more than 150 feet square per site and preexisting contours must be
reestablished.
4. All utility lines must be either completely elevated or buried so as not
to impact hydrology.
5. Stabilization is required immediately on completion of each individual
crossing.
STATE CONSISTENCY CONDITIONS
1. To be eligible for this permit, all utility lines must be either
completely elevated or buried so as not to impact hydrology.
2. Removal of temporary excavated or fill materials in waters or wetlands and
stabilization is required immediately on completion of each individual
crossing.
3. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands and waters is
limited to 40 feet in width under this permit and must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
4. Permanent access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width
practicable and may not exceed 10 feet in width except in locations specified
on maps for vehicular access purposes.
5. Established erosion control practices shall be utilized to prevent
violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTU's in
streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management; 25 NTU's in all saltwater classes and
all lakes and reservoirs and 10 NTU's in trout waters).
D
0
-5-
6. The applicant must receive written concurrence from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management that the proposal is certified under the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
7. If the proposed activity is within the North Carolina Coastal Area, the
applicant must receive written concurrence from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management that the activity is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
GENERAL CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands and waters is
limited to 40 feet in width and must be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
2. Written concurrence is required from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
14 3. Permanent access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width
practicable and may not exceed 10 feet in width except in locations specified
on maps for vehicular access purposes.
4. Established sediment and erosion control practices will be utilized to
prevent violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50
M NTU's in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, 25 NTU's in all saltwater
classes and all lakes and reservoirs and 10 NTU's in trout waters).
5. Work plans must be legible and sized to 8-1/2 by 11 inches.
6. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters of the State until the concrete has hardened.
7. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to this Certification in
order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards.
8. Concurrence from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire three
years from the date of the cover letter from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
iii
0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston 1-toward, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary December 22, 1992 Acting Dinmctor
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
The Tuscarora Group
Post Office Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands or Waters
Commercial development
Nash County
DEM Project # 92651
Upon review of your request for Water Quality certification
to place fill material in 4.21 acres of wetlands or waters for
commercial development located at southwest quadrate of US 301
bypass and US 64 in Nash County, we have determined that the
proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality
Certification No.:2671 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the
General Certification is attached. This Certification may be
used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 26. Additional conditions are that 1)
monitoring and wetland impact should follow Appian Map CE-2, Oct.
1992, and conditions 3,4, and 5, 2) Annual monitoring reports
will be submitted by Jan. 1 of each year and document percent
survivability of trees by location and species and 3) Applicant
must certify that wetland hydrology exists at all mitigation
sites.
'If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919/733-1786.
Sincerely,
P eston Howard, Jr P.E.
APH:JD
Attachment REGI AL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251.6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

cc: 'Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
0

( ENEl?L C l (t'1'1L 1( A'11.UN LUIS k?l<U,)I L'2 I'l L(?1LSL1_.
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 26 (HEADWAT?RS
AND ISOLATED WETLANDS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity - with -:.he
requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 c: the
United States and subject to the-North Carolina Division of
ronmental Management Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500
and 15A NCAC 2B .0109 and .0201 for the discharge of fill m?-e-
rial to navigable waters and adjacent wetland areas which ar
above the headwaters or to c•retland areas that are not a part of
the surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable
waters of the United States (i.e., isolated wetlands) as
described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (26) of the Corps of Engi-
neers regulations (i.e., Nationwide Permit No. 26) The category
of activities shall include any fill activity in these headwaters
and isolated wetland and water areas where the activity does not
result in the loss or substantial modification of 10 acres or
more of waters of the United States, including wetlands. This
Certification replaces Water Quality Certification Number 21'76
issued on November 5, 1987.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified
category of activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306
and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
U 1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of greater than
one-third of an acre of such waters, including wetlands,
requires a written concurrence from the Division of Envi-
ronmental
Management.
2. _
Proposed"fill or substantial modification of equal to or
less•.than one-third of an acre of such craters, including
wetlands, does-not require written concurrence from the
Division of Environmental Management.
3. Proposed fill of greater than one acre in SA, trout,
HQ47, ORW, WS-I and 4-JS-IT watersheds requires public
notice and an individual 401 Certification from the Divj.-
sion of Environmental Management;
4. That established sediment and erosion control practices
are utilized to prevent violations of the a
i
t
ppropr
a
e
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in streams and
rivers not designated as trout waters by DEM; 25 NTUs in
all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs
10
;
NTUs in trout waters);
5. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to
projects with greater than one-third of an acre impact
j? which are proposed under this Certification in order to
ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and
effluent standards;
6. Concurrence from DEM this Certification applies to an
individual project shall expire three years from the date

E66! 03.AI3032 ;
of the cover letter from DEM.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set
forth by a specific fill project shall result in revocation of
this Certification.for the project.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
N,anagement may require submission of a formal application for
individual certification for any project in this category of
activity, if it is determined that the project is likely to have
a significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the
waters so that existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters
are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or
group of applications prior to a Certification decision if deemed
in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Caro-
.L i)ivision of Environmental I'llanagement.
This is the 21st day of January, 1992
DIVISION Or ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
By c l
George T.(Fherett, Director
gencert.26
jrd/gc
WQC= 2671
0
0
a
Q
cNT OF TAXI
PRfDf {N
o p United States Department of the Interior At?}CA
p
a FISH AND NVILDLIFE SERVICE
- 9 Raleigh Field Office
?4ReN' 0, Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 17, 1992
Mr. J. Michael Stocks
Appian Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North
Dear Mr. Stocks:
Carolina 27804-0966
This is in response to your letter dated June 25, 1992, requesting the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide information on the potential
impacts to Federally-listed species from the proposed Village Green shopping
center, to be located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 64 and U.S. Highway
301 ByPass in Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531-1543) (Act).
During your August 11, 1992 site visit with biologist Kate Looney of this
office, it was agreed that the following measures will be implemented to avoid
project-related sediment input into Stony Creek and potential impacts to the
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon): (1) State approved
best management practices for proper erosion control; (2) construction will
remain outside the FEMA 100 year flood.plain; (3) the site will be sloped
away from Stony Creek; and, (4) the stormwater retention and detention pond
will be allowed to drain into the wetlands adjacent to the site and away from
Stony Creek.
Based on implementation of the above measures and our August 11, 1992, site
visit, the service concurs that the project, as presently proposed, is not
likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed endangered species.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this
review; or,. (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by.the iddritified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments during the early
stages of the project. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Looney.
Sincerely,
tte 1-7 1/ -1
Tom Augspu?g?r
Acting Supervisor
0
0
M.
0

.?` f' ;z.. ttl
Received
W w'° Due
?(v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
James G. Martin, Governor
Panic Dorsey, Secretary
NATIONWIDE 404 PERMIT REVIEW
APPLICANT: Appian Consulting Engineers
PO Box 7966
Rocky Mount NC 27804
Attn: Mike Stocks
Project Location: NASH COUNTY/Rocky Mount
Proposed Project: Shopping Center

We have received the application for the above project from the
applicant/Division of Environmental Management (circle one) and our
comments are noted below.
Additional information is needed (maps,
photographs, other)..
No comment.
Signed
Date / Z
cc: Wayne Wright, ACOE (if info requested)
7 / 0 2
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
RECEIVELD J J L 1 11992
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer: {J
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*-.'EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) -;.•,•
PERMIT YR: 95 PERMIT NO: 0001103 COUNTY: NASH
APPLICANT NAME: VILLAGE GREEON - ROBERT D. GORHAM, JR.
PROJECT _TYPE: COMMERICAL FILL PERMIT-TYPE: NW26
COE #: DOT #:
RCD_FROM _CDA: APP DATE_FRM_CDA: 10/16/95
REG OFFICE: RRO
RIVER AND SUB BASIN J:
STREAM CLASS:
WL_IMPACT? : V ` ^ 1 tct L
1
WL REQUESTED : y zs C???? ear \
STR INDEX N0:
WL_TYPE : kor-
WL_ACR_EST?:?DN
WL_SCORE M : qq WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y,0
MITIGATION? : 61N MITIGATION-TYPE: C-reazkV.-\
MITIGATION-SIZE: old I fd DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?:lJ N
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: (a N
RECOM ENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE /YS UE/CO 1) DENY
1 I f p
/ a ((I .
a qQ" COMMENTS : "- q?- d"i f ?k
an,
CC: Regional Office
Central Files

uzra? to Z/I `: n7aourginlsip luioduou %OI< par pagsJalrri? niitsuas urdi auiod I PPV*
;7
Utz = 00* 1 X uorluonpg/uoiluoni-a D
= 00'V X anlrn, adll oiiunby 1?I
= 00'Z X - lul?qug adiIPI Ak j
= 00'9 X * Iunouzal luulnllod
= 00'? X - uorlrzrjiquls aulla]OgS/JIuL'g
= 00'ti x afrJOls Jalrm
lq`atan? /
l
ooupns snocnJadun -
ar uugJngns/uuqJn `olnilnou2u---)
0io -?j7 uorlr1050n IuJnluu/polsaJo,? i
(snrpsJ Jo `odojsdn `ureaJlsdn alms Z/j urgirm)
asn puul luaaufpV
laad 001 z glP?m puullann Iulol
pazrpuuugo Jo pagalip -
,?gduJBodol duals -
saolotd ollnu xpf.II
Spuus XIlurunuopoid
Xpurs-uou - Iu ounu Xpurunuopaid -
luad 10
`:lonw `snwng - o=Sio XIluuuiwopald
salaas llos
Jaglo
apin,ip un?aJlsJalut unllrm -
ureaJls luaiiruualut uo--,
mmils IutuuaJad uo -
axul lo puod uo -
uoilraoZ puullahn
aluQ Jolunlrnado auiuK
la 3 -'? TPIA1 Puullahl saJOr --?- uaiv purl M ? L flunoD
rz Prog lsaJUaN lutq loafoJd
untSxa1k g41 no s oA ONTIV?l C_rl IVI 11A?
-s ouuuouIrwis io sagsimu -s-psi io s-o}- of ads --------------- sXs STi-Pul - a ? ------------
[ g g.? q I P I g jouuuo i g*
Jaglo isoiod dog
Arg ru?IoJUD - uTSOOOd -
pu pane lulauiagdg - lull laA,
uad/20g - lsa.iod dmrmS
gsJruI JalrnngsaJ3 - lsalod JalrnnpraH 7G'
uuurnus aurd - lsalod poompmq purpollog
*(ouo loalas) ASS puu1jaM
Munn aorpns Jo Surpoogdo aouap!Ao ou -
ialum oordJns
tiulodwal.zo papoog AIurllruualui -
paiupunui Jo popooU X11uuosuos / I
palupunui Jo popoog'
XIluouruuod of AIluoumuodriuas -
ssaulaM pul; 2uIpooll
V '.
J
u0gr1323n, lurultuoQ
- -4
ffmPPOA&n
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, rA
CIVIL. MUNICIPAL 6 STRUCTURAL MORNrERS
841 S. Wesleyan Blvd.
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804-0966
Telephone: [phone]n/ Fax #: (9119),972-7638
44 b 1 lJ? ?- K Gt
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING:
ants/Plans ? Estimates
? Permit Applications ? Change order
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE 1 I JOB NO. 92-14A
ATTENTIONu
RE. 1

? Contracts
? Bid Proposal
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
?FFor approval ? Bid Tabulation Distribution ? Boundary Survey needed - see attached
>Fpr your use ? Approved permits for your files/records ? Easement needed - see attached
/? As requested ? For Review and Comment ? Topographical survey needed -see attached
? Forward to Appian your Performance Bond, Labor and Materials and Insurance Certificates
O For your signature, then return to Appian/
? For your processing with
Deliver to:
? Addressee Signature required,
No substitute signatures!
? Substitute Signature allowed
Received by:
Hand delivered by:
Date:
? Permit Applications ? Plans ? Specifications
? Appian Chk If in the amount of $
? Financial Responsibility form
? As discussed
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 t
MIT Wj
REMARKS 1/yim?,?J • v ?? ?` ' -
COPY TO SIGNED:
?L15? -?-!?
? Specifications
1141 e r
t 7-
? p
/??C ? rit/ ('' ?' ? l ?i ? (/I i?E'?` ? ? ? l r? ?' ?? j " `;. ?? f " l?PG?/.'G? `?/ rev/
1 !? ?? ?' Sir ??t ? ?dGc? ?% o ?? ? ??1? ? ='? Li ;??? /??.? ?^c? ??, ? _ . _ -
?Lf??1?G1-6 ?,/POG?1/?rc?Glv;d? G'.'( ?>.?r _ ;'a'r'k __
5a y
P?Gf G -e ?/ ! / ?1 v' C ? - ? ? ? !/ J 4G (ip cr /?'• , .?- ?;? • :????.-_?,`.^ ? J J .i:??:
AIV-
F
Minimization and Practicability Analysis for ???`??f?? o9-?s
Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC.
s
1. The subject 60 acre property has been under the same ownership for 30 years. The
property is zoned commercial and it has been the intention of the owner to develop it in
accordance with that zoning category since at least 1971. A flan of development prepared in
1971 by Envirodynamics, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, is provided as Figure 1. That plan would
have completely relocated Stony Creek and obliterated all wetlands onsite.
2. Recognizing that current environmental laws at the State and federal level negated
the possibility of development in accordance with Figure 1, the owner and his consultants
have worked over a period of years to minimize impacts to the natural environment while still
al lowing use of property as per current zoning and the long-term expectations of the owner.
3. In 1992, the owner sought and was granted by the Corps of Engineers authorization
under NWPs 14 and 26 to fill a total of 4.17 acres of waters of the U.S. to develop a 15 acre
commercial park complex with one large anchor store with approximately 100,000 SF, with
minimum parking at 700 (Figure 1.5). Subsequently, the prospective buyer determined that it
needed to build a larger facility and that the site would no lower meet its needs (See Gorham
telecom record dated 7/22/92 at Appendix A).
4. Since 1992, the owner has been unsuccessful in attracting any buyers for the 15
acre parcel (See Gorham telecom record dated 3/2/95 re: Bojangles on outparcel #1 at
Appendix A. Bojangles has since terminated discussions with the owner because of the lack
of an anchor store at Village Green and is seeking land near other anchor stores on Route
301).
5. In April, 1995, plans were developed to provide commercial space in three
structures totalling 254,408 SF plus three outparcels (Figure 2). This design would have
impacted 3.98 acres of wetlands beyond the originally authorized 4.17 acres for a total of
8.15 acres.
6. Subsequently, a new buyer (Wal-Mart Supercenter) needing 188,045 SF, expressed
interest in the property. This led to the design proposal submitted by joint application on
October 10, 1995. That design is shown herein as Figure 3 and would have resulted in a total
wetland impact of 8.42 acres.
7. Wal-Mart has certain minimum design specilicat:ons that must be met for it to
locate on a property. In particular, it requires one acre of land for every 10,000 SF of store
space. For the proposed facility, 19 (18.8) acres of land are needed. In addition, Wal-Mart
requires a ratio of 5.5 parking spaces for each 1000 SF olf building space: total of 1,034
spaces.

8. Upon the request of the Corps and NCDEM, we attempted to further reduce the
impacts associated with the project. Wal-Mart's engineer produced the plan shown as Figure
4 with a total wetland impact of 7.78 acres. However, economic analysis revealed that this
project was not practicable.
9. Further redesign resulted in the plan shown as Figure 5. This option would impact a
total of 7.24 acres of wetland. Figure 5 represents the least damaging practicable alternative
a`' for use of the site and is the modified plan for which authorization under NWP 26 is sought.
x?o Economic Analysis Background
1. The Village Green site is a tract of land that was subdivided from three parcels
purchased in 1965 and 1966 totalling 132.4 Acres. The cost of these parcels is indicate in, a
memo from E. Wayne Gibson dated November 6, 1995 at Appendix B. The average cost per
acre was approximately $1,450. The total cost for the 57.7 acres that comprise the Village
Green site was approximately $83,700.
2. The 1993 taxes on the parcel were S699.79. While we do not have actual tax
records dating back to 1965, we estimate that since then approximately $18,000 or $312 per
acre have been paid.
3. Between March 1989 and the present, the owner has spent more than $400,000 or
$6,960 per acre trying to develop the site (See Village Green Expenses dated November 6,
1995 at Appendix B).
4. In 1993 the estimate for fill material needed to elevate the property above the 100
year flood line was $8.00 per cubic yard (Gorham telecom record dated 8/17/93 at Appendix
B). Recently, Allen Barnhill verified that the resonable cost to provide fill is $7.75 per cubic
yard (See Barnhill letter dated November 6, 1995 at Appendix B).
5. The owner has negotiated a purchase agreement with Circuit City Stores, Inc. to
sell it 3.1 acres for a store at the price of $175,000 per acre for a total of $542,500 (Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated 10/24/95 at Appendix B). The Circuit City purchase agreement
can not be finalized without a formal committment of a large anchor store to locate on the site
(See Gorham telecom records dated 4/12/95 at Appendix B).
6. Based upon sales of other properties in Rocky Mount, the owner estimates that
outparcels 1, 2 and 3 will sell for $350,000, S350,000 and $300,000, respectively, when
located with a large anchor store. (See To Whom It May Concern from Robert D. Gorham
dated 11/6/95 and Real Estate Sales: Rocky Mount, NC at Appendix B).
7. Trends in the sale prices of larger parcels have declined since 1979 (Real Estate
Sales: Rocky Mount, NC at Appendix B. In 1984 Farm Fresh purchased 8.59 acres at
-2-
$148,411 per. In 1987 Wal Mart purchased 8.95 acres at $125,098 per. In 1994 Target
purchased 8.80 acres at $83,523 per. Based upon current market conditions, the owner
expects to gross $80,000 per acre from the sale of 19 acres to Wal Mart.
Cost Estimate for Least Damaging Practicable Alternative
(Figure 5) with 7.24 Acres Total Wetland Impact
Expenses:
Total fill required (26 Acres):
6'elevation 7'elevation
245,556yd3 286,481 d3
$7.75/yd3 7.75/yd
$1,903,000 $2,220,000 $1,903,000
Initial cost of land & taxes $ 102,000
Expenses to date $ 401,000
Proposed mitigation (41 acres) $ 100,000
Total Expenses $2,506,000
Gross revenues:
«%al-Mart 19 acres @ $80,000 per acre $1,520,000
Circuit City $ 542,000
Three outparcels $1,000,000
Total Gross Revenues $3,062,000
Net revenue realized per acre of land (57.7 acres) $ 9,636

Cost Estimate for Existing 15 acres
(Figure 1.5) with 4.17 Acres Total Wetland Impact
Expenses:
Total fill required:
6'elevation 7'elevation
151,111 yd3 176,296?,d3
$7.75/yd3 7.75/yd
$1,171,000 $1,366,000 $1,171,000
Initial cost of land & taxes $ 102,000
Expenses to date $ 401,000
Proposed mitigation (0.8 acres) $ 10,000
Total Expenses $1,684,000
Gross revenues:
11.28 acres @ $80,000 per acre $ 902,000
3.72 @ $210,000 (mean of 1994 & 1995 comparables) $ 781,000
Total Gross Revenues $1,683,000
Net revenue (LOSS) realized per acre of land (57.7 acres) -$ 17
Cost Estimate for Wal-Mart Only Alternative
(No Figure) with 5.83 Acres Total Wetland Impact
Expenses:
Total fill required (19 Acres):
6'elevation 7'elevation
188,889yd3 220,370?d3
$7.75/yd3 7.75/yd
$1,464,000 $1,708,000 $1,464,000
Initial cost of land & taxes $ 102,000
Expenses to date $ 401,000
Proposed mitigation (4.12 acres) $ 25,000
Total Expenses $1,992,000
Gross revenues:
Wal-Mart 19 acres @ $80,000 per acre $1,520,000
Total Gross Revenues $1,528,000
Net revenue (LOSS) realized per acre of land (57.7 acres) -$ 804
-4-
Cost Estimate for Wal-Mart Supercenter Alternative
(Figure 4) with 7.78 Acres Total Wetland Impact
Expenses:
Total fill required (26 Acres):
6'elevation 7'elevation
245,556yd3 286,481 d3
$7.75/yd3 7.75/yd'
$1,903,000 $2,220,000 $1,903,000
Initial cost of land & taxes $ 102,000
Expenses to date $ 401,000
Proposed mitigation (41 acres) $ 100,000
Total Expenses $2,506,000
Gross revenues:
Wal-Mart 19 acres a $80,000 per acre $1,520,000
Circuit City $ 542,000
Two outparcels $ 650,000
Total Gross Revenues $2,712,000
Net revenue realized per acre of land (57.7 acres) $ 3570
-5-
Appendix A
0 C,

U

- V

All,
2 0 ?.

yv?
3,'7o c

5 ys. - o ? S `f
?-?_vlgl

_ bx-? Tb '2-?
00( 0 o o

e2; 0 v
o? ;e
fib. s ?7--?3?-? ?f
00,
Appendix B
MEMORAND UAI
DATE: November 6, 1995
TO: RDG
FROM: E. Wayne Gibson
RE: Village Green Land Cost
CC:
You asked me to research the original cost of the various parcels comprising the Village
Green property. Following is my best analysts based on the information immediately available to
me.
April 1, 1966 - You purchased 58.4 acres of Poe land at a cost estimated at $118,800, or
slightly over $2,000 per acre.
July 8, 1965 - You purchased 46 acres of Green land at a cost of $52,000, or slightly
over $1,130 per acre.
May 10, 1965 - You purchased 28-31 acres of Scruggs land at a cost of $20,000 to
$22,000, or approximately $700 per acre.
I have been unable to quickly locat-- anything about the Bunn or Bullock purchases, nor
do I know what their contribution as a percentage of the Village Green land is.
boo
PU,

BARNHILL
CONTRACTING
ED c®MM,y
131 1 Nonh Man Surf P O Box 1529
T rWo. North CaroLrd 27686
919{3231021 Fax 919$23-0137
November 6, 1995
Mr. Mike Stocks
Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A.
P.O.Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804-0966
Re: Village Green
Hwy. 301
Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Budget Pricing
Dear Mr. Stocks:
Based on our conversations, we understand that approximately
150,000 to 250,000 cubic yards of material will be required for
the above referenced project. After studying access, the site,
and conditions involved, we feel that $7.75 per c.yd. would be a
reasonable price to furnish, place, and haul this material.
Should you require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Yours very truly,
BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY
- , VL /a'L &
Allen Barnhill
Vice President
AB/hws
.,
?..? Th'S 5;a;innr•ry n D, ` = ? 01) rr•..., b,fl na,,
November 6, 1995
VILLAGE GREEN EXPENSES
Tom Banks 512,787.26
J.H. Crow Company 538,741.79
Appian Engineers 597,966.11
HEC 2 $10,945.90
Barnhill $237,264.66
Law Engineering S1,270.88
N.C. Dept of Trans. $1,778.50
Nat. Flood Ins. Program $640.00
9-25-91
Oct, 1989-March 1990
Dec, 1989-October 6, 1995
10-23-92
Mar, May, 1995
October 1994
December 1994
September, 1995

DRAFT DATE 3/25/95 10/24/95
Rocky Mount, NC
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as
the "Agreement") made and entered into this day of
, 19-19951 by and between ROBERT D. GORHAM, JR.
(hereinafter referred to as "Seller"), and CIRCUIT CITY STORES,
INC., a Virginia corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Buyer").
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS .
A. Seller owns fee simple title to that certain tract of
real property located at the Southwest corner of Wesleyan
Boulevard (US Highway 301 Bypass) and US Highway 64 Bypass in
Rocky Mount, North Carolina, more particularly described by metes
and bounds or platted legal description on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, and
containing approximately 18.0 acres, more or less (the "Seller
Tract").
B. Seller desires to sell, and Buyer desires to purchase,
certain real estate which is a portion of the Seller Tract
(hereinafter described as the "Property") and which contains
acres, more or less, which Property is shown on the site
plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Site Plan"), together
with all improvements situated thereon and all rights, easements
IJ:\013363\130\4aoeoi34.W511
(10/24/95 4:36pm; PIMENTEL_LI

and appurtenances now or hereafter belonging thereto. The
Property shall be described by metes and bounds legal description
determined from the survey to be obtained pursuant to paragraph 3
(a) hereof, which legal description shall be attached hereto as
Exhibit "B-1" upon completion and as so attached shall be
incorporated herein by reference for all purposes and shall
supersede the Site Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND
N01100 DOLLARS ($25,000), paid simultaneously herewith by Buyer
to Chicago Title Insurance Company, or its agent (the "Escrow
Agent") as earnest money (which, together with interest accrued
thereon, as set forth in paragraph 2 below, shall be the
"Deposit"), and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller
hereby agrees to sell and Buyer hereby agrees to purchase the
Property on the following terms and conditions:
1. Purchase Price. The "Purchase Price" for the Property
shall be ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND and N01100 Dollars
($175,000.00) per acre, prorated for any portion thereof
(calculated to the nearest thousandth) of land comprising the
Property, as determined by the survey prepared pursuant to
paragraph 3(a) hereof. The Deposit shall be applied to the
Purchase Price at the Closing.
2. Deposit; Escrow Agent; Default. Upon execution of this
Agreement by Seller, Escrow Agent shall, pursuant to the terms
hereof, place the Deposit in a demand interest-bearing savings
[J:\013363\130\4aoeoi34.u511
3 [10/24/95 4:36pm; PIMENTEL_L1

fi 6 Cr
1 r ?n '
C- /V--rll
?- f r1 Ts
Q L. ??
jz6? . (&,,- )
777 L,-,
--

.12?0 U A? r-r-
????-fps
JA_

G? G6- " ? ? D

?s
CD 4-.e
To Whom It May Concern:
- Based on current market values I would hope to sell the following out parcels at
these prices at this point in time:
Out parcel #1 -S350,000
Out parcel #2 -S350,000
Out parcel #3 -S300,000
U (?
Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
11/6/95
REAL,ESTATE SALES: ROCKY MOUNT, NC

SALE
DATE
PROPERTY
LOCATION '
SZE
SQ FEET ORIGINAL SALE

ACRES PRICE
PRICE PER
SQ FOOT ACRE
CPI Index as of December 1994 (current index) ? I
[Original prices have been adjusted t ,o current prix levels us ng the U.S. Co hsumer Price In dex (CPI).
were divided by the CPI at the tirg e of the origin al sale an multiplied by he current CPI to obtain cu
1979 Land behind restaurant sold to t 28,397 0.65 5165,000 S5.81 $253,104
Tan}town Mall for added parking
i
1979 TACO BELL i 32,712 0.75 S169,500 55.18 $225,710
Sunset Avenue
Jun 1981 WENDYS 39,640 0.91 S125,000 S3.15 S137,361
Sunset Avenue
1983 MIDAS 20,500 - 0.47 5106,000 $5.17 S225,237
Highway 301
1984 BURGER KING 38,690 - 0.89 $225,000 $5.82 $253,321
Sunset Avenue
1984 FARM FRESH 374,224 8.59 $1,275,000 S3.41 S148,411
May Drive
1985 GOODYEAR 27,235 0.63 5146,050 S5.36 5233,594
Highway 301
1985 MINI STORAGE 105,851 2.43 5172,000 51.62 S70,782
Country Club Drive
1985 QUINCYS 56,236 1.29 5260,000 S4.62 5201,394
May Drive
1986 OLDSINISSAN 242,194 5.56 S213,500 50.88 $38.399
Highway 301 North
1986 OLDSINISSAN 62,100 1.43 $75,000 S1.21 $52,609
Highway 301 North Q Hwy 64
May 1987 WINOCO MART 20,908 - 0.48 5175,000 S8.37 5364,597
3490 Sunset Avenue
I
1987 SOUTHEAST ASSOC. I 393,303 9.03 S930,000 S2.36 $103.002
Lot 03-Wal Mart Plaza
Highway 301 North
1987 WAL MART 389,992 8.95 $1,120,000 S2.87 S125.098
Lot 94
Highway 301 North j
I
1988 MCDONALD'S I I 54,000 - 1.24 5556,740 $10.31 S449,104
Highway301 North i i Lease Value
Aug 1989 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO i 41,600 _ 0.96 S374,816 S9.01 S392,476
Sunset Avenue I I
1989 FIRESTONE i i 30,000 0.69 5360,000 512.00 S522,720
Highway 301 North Lease Value
I
Cliett Build to Suit
19897' " APPLEBY'S "' - - - 44,431 1.02 $355,448 S8.00 S348,480
Golden East Mall
Highway 301 North
?
Oct 1989 50-Acre Tract j 2,178,000 50.00 S5,500,000 S2.53 S110.000
Suffers Creek Blvd
Page 1
REAL ESTATE SALES' ROCKY MOUNT, NC
_ ORIGINAL S:V_l;
SiZf: -- --------.."- LPER ---
SALE PROPERTY
rIATF t OrAT ON SO `-= ,'-?'rS PR1CF SQ F-T ACRE:

CPI Index as of December 1994 (current index) I
(Original prices have been adjusted to current price levels using the U.S. Consu mer Price hldcx (CPI).
were divided by the CPI at the time of th. original salt and m ultiplied by he current CPI to obtain cu
Apr 1991 MCDONALD'S 54.000 - 1.24 S589.000I S10.91 S475,127
Highway 301 North
June 1991 RED LOBSTER I) 74,923 - 1.721 $496,739 I 56.63 $288,803
Highway 301 North
Oct 1991 SOUTHEAST ASSOC. ' 4'.210 - 0.97 ; S171,000! 54.05 S176,469
Lot # 1 - (Back Lot)
Hunter Hill Road li
1991 CENTURA BANK 18.500 _ 0.42 i S241,975 513.08 5569,753
2430 Sunset - Tarryto An Mall !i
i
Oct 1991 SOUTHEAST ASSOC. I 89,211 2.05 I $579,000 I 56.49 $282,714
Lot #2 - Bobby Murray I
,
Highway 301 North i,
Mar 1992 PERKINS REST. II , 43,124 - 0.99 I $333,986 $7.74 $337,363
Golden East Pking Mall
Highway 301 North (but no
direct access to Hwy 301)
Oct 1992 TACO BELL HOT N' NOW I I 36,955 - 0.851 $250,000 56.76 $294,683
Highway 301 North (but no
direct access to Hwy 301)
Oct 1992 WENDY'S I 43,560 _ 1.00 I $325,000 $7.46 $325,000
I
Highway 301 North (but no i
direct access to Hwy 301; paid ii ! I
5395,000: S325,000 for land and
I
S70,000 for improvements such
I
as curb, gutter and paving-
lot already paved) j
Nov 1992 CLEAIN-CLEAN LAUNDRY 36.739 - 0.84 S440.868 512.00 5522.720
Former Planters Bank location
at Tarry2o% n Mall j
Sunset Ave @ Hwy 301
Dec 1992 Ryan's Steakhouse I 71,874 1.651 $395,0001 $5.50 $239,394
Old K•Mart Plaza
Sunset Ave and Highway 301 :'.
i
Oct 1993 Krispy Kreme 34.848 - 0.80 S365,000 510.47 S456,250
Highway 301 II

May 1994 !i
Target (Dayton Hudson) i1
383,328
8.801
$735,0001
S1.92
$83,523
Sutters Creek Blvd
May 1994 New York Carpet World 11 40,075 0.921 $300,000 I 57.49 $326,087
Highway 301 !
Golden East out parcel
Aug 1994 Texas Steakhouse I1 93,218 2.14 I 5465,000 I 54.99 $217,291
Sutters Creek Blvd I
i
Feb 1995 Waffle House 2".878 0.64 S350,000 ; 512.55 S546,883
1
Apr 1995 Burger King II 67,082 1.54 $333,000 54.96 5216,234
Apr 1995 Ragazzi's it 50,094 1.151 $350,000 S6.99 $304,348
Page 2
Nov. 6 195 14:25
0008 APPIAN CONSULTING ENG PA TEL [phone]
P. 1

t:3 ri n
D
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PA
CIVIL, MUNICIPAL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Date: -
Fax No.: ( )3 -

To w r?k1?n I r t?V
With: M) L
RE: -- ?j
From:
Comments:
ly r'iMd 11P 1Alfidld Ir
l
THANK YOUI

C
- r,
R0. BOX 79bG
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27004
[phone] FAX [phone]
t
Number of pages to fallow J.nciudm . g this page
r?G ??
da J.
a??;?-b n 11?e.'!a 3.07 A c.`
,r ?' r .•11?579?59''M'.•.'?23tL0'•' 9 .
r rr
?J( t h r of J?lf/t tyf?
~?.- {t: •I rrl?ti?iG Sal r,j" ?.
11 ? .y( 1 rFrr t:,, r
'. CNTR' :ENTRY,. ERC:NTE9, ,• /
LEFT'
GARQEN' .TLE'..LFr .
?-Ob NIDT••D/SlURO 1 1 J t tltr 1rr, I, /l^ `/'? t II yl 1 it
., l i rY tr y. 7 V1 111 4y ,.1t! l 4)i+.:r i
' 41LA1JQ5
?? '''^•'?-.,?' ?, ., l...,,: ! 1 *'. t/ ; t / t tN }) y l 1 1' I/ti :. 1rt 5? ? .,? (4rt i. r
It r S'I ! Ir? V SR , J 1 i1 ,J. r ,r. 1 r
?? rel 1 I I 4 t 4, t y/J f ?.
' '' '' 'r( ? I t1 J' 1 r t t r 1. ,
-?' '• •:,, •. •;'s ,1 Jf, 1)rS{i 5 pr, t i? 1 Nia ?1 !' i t l ?r t
?,?•^'•'.;''••' J ,t tit t ? s r 1VV c f,+l'1J !Sa i?l { rVyl1{ i qtr, r ??(
, y JI.)'?1 1` J:.? ?tff H?,t trlr ?1 rr1 LJ rt ?I r F
?! 1lV?ti`r^-•v.-'+-t?°•iil?\`t cS ?N lyI J`:1i r/,t. c. r r, I /t.,t? N ???
V/ ?1Ayr v r tS I.r ' t S /y 'nr
\ l '. tr,: yt ,.,1 ^ ti > •;f t'1f aS3';r? nr1'1'f• !l F'.r
'l •:',• ? 11 ,7wItt11.. +? 1 .4'?all?I ?1?1 lS
d'\ \? d ./,l2 I ? J •,wr ti J tit uv ltwl?t r
\ in ,.y, 1yJ J,f,ty N, J r 4'1 witt/L 4 •y
POOL.
N,','z,.,
•\ 41 ?? u? r } 15.A „) >? .tit t \i ,
\ r t.: s y1 cl t 1? vs t 'iif r j 1 jYj C.
1 1 I r ? a.,t t t S ^? yf 1?
I 1 `? i I,y Yy M14,I 'i; . y1 i'I
"W4 'All
yy , tt r ?t ,, d
i v? ;,`• ut t.s,ss',. rile t,is ;y1q. / / / i
? • . • •'.' • , ?/r' y J t.?+.'.' d 'SS Ib r rl ? H S1Nt?r
_?.r. r' r•St l/t„ r 1 , i, i, / ? tt.= i.
??, , t tfy1 : t my ' 11?1?t11 L ?.{i?tt
.....%' t 1 v, J t v t+< 4 c 1, dr.. i tl! '-!tI
4111%i'J. ,'.l i• L ^.:t.{'t ?S'Y y { ' ,\?'?\''?\
~^ r •l• i:.1?•A:t 1' 11';r itrlN?ity, r)?r Y
> j 1 t
?'. .?I?, .•,.,??,• °`,l•,'7?1 Yale t r'
?.'••.;.•;••;•t?.tip„ i,,•tif,•/t.
C)P}i'o ?i 2.
wo*onj a.J
00
3. oq AG ,?

r
r `6 r -
1 r ! r
? r
r
r ?. PROPOSED ? w "•'
DIVERS{ON
BERM
f?).11???,??'.•. .?1.? ^yi'ii?:.'l.'i ?:.4'??':.'.': ?:i'.r44 ?.:: '.4.?•• I, 7 ?•?.•.• ..r-?i. y, r.r+:.•
1 1 ',' ','••'.'• J t ' y. f, t !/ .tat tL fir ?,,, {' (IV y ? yr
\•:, ? X30,
N
• ?1
}Vi X11 '` ?'
NATURAL FOREBAY
_ (2 DAY DRAW DOWN)
ACE 0-20
INA111rti?1RT. g•U?FiNTi ;
'.:Cf~tJTER• N.TRY,''•? r -G1ARDEN '.TL?'•'.L'&T
C.=.f8g?5G •?

f I , t ?. 7
ve Ix
i

r;

7? 1?1 l?ti{{
IT PODIA' u,r, 1{,r . /I l,f r : ;r,`; F /
4 \ ltf?t? N\ t??urJt?}r?y?l?,l o1?a?,
?r41.
A \ / F`tittMk r! ` ?,q Al
AYV yY`.7}?iV _/
?• I }t?':;t.„ ?Sl, v),(li Ilir 1{T'?t'?;;} F
?, .. } nvt,, rtl S
{l;/ tS51?,?ylt'' a
rte t. t} ?? i,l^,is1?Sl'111;/1 {??1 ? 1 t,. /
'? '?. 43, ?'.''•'. ?? Y i !, # t ZS• ?jwSStl S `i',Yi :{? :tt
.?.i'?.i" ? ?: AT `t4li? ],,??' Sr' I'Y•1'?} ?' s` Yl. `'" c `\\\\\\\
/.?• .L4 /'?/.. F6 t: , ,Yy}111151 i J
?``?,1. 1 s1 •t.•?#-l Sflit f .?.
All
nun
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
g511O3
Joint Application Form
for
VILLAGE GREEN SITE
Rocky Mount, N.C.
Submitted to: US ACOE & NC DEM
October 10, 1995
Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A.
841 S. Wesleyan Blvd.
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
PO Box 7966
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
?I
VIE
0
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): _ 26
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: Mr. R?hert n Go ham Tr
2. Owners Address: The Tuscarora Corp . P.0. Box 912, Rocky Mount, NC 27802
3. Owners Phone Number (FAX [phone] (Work): 919-443-7041
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Attn: Robert J. Pierce
P .0. Box 1022 [phone]
Poolesville, Maryland '20837-1022
L? 5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: _ Nash
Nearest Town or City: Rocky Mount
Specific, Location (Include road.numbers, landmarks,.etc.): The southwest quadrant of the intersection
of US H 301 B Pass and US H 64, just north of Stony Creek
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Stony Creek
7. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico River Basin
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [) NO k]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES ] NO [ )
If yes, explain. Action ID. 199300379 NWPs 14 (0.06) & 26 (4.11 acres)
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: + 15 acres
of wetlands including those filled under 199300379;. excluding Stony Creek
11. Number of acres of waters of khe :J.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project: '
Filled: 4.19 (additional 4.17 impacted under 199300379)
Drained: None
Flooded: None
Excavated: 0.06
Total Impacted: 4.25 (Total with Previous fill 8.42)
12. Description of proposed.work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 1 1" Develop a commercial
drawings only):
center featuring one large anchor, a smaller professional building, necessary
parking and associated sturmwater management facilities.
13. Purpose of proposed work: Provide ± 200,000 SF of highly visible commercial space and
associated infra
structure
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. The proposed user of the anchor store needs a large, high-
ly visible retail facility. Intersection of U.S. 301 and 64 among best in RM
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X] NO[
J
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected-by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES (X ] NO(
J
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property. Enclosed
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project. N/A
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line. Enclosed. Delineation approved by COE on 8/29/95
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy. Under separate cover
E. What island use of surrounding property? Commercial
F. If applicable, what is proposed method-of sewage disposal? City sewer (Rocky Mount)

Owner's Signature
1 gG 9s
Date
* Numerous attempts were made to fit facility onsite with less impact to waters of
US.
0
0

n
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 50-
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 - ,
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
August 2, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Wetland Determination, Action ID. 199300379
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
c/o The Tuscarora Corporation
P.O. Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
On June 20, 1995, Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of my Raleigh Field office
regulatory staff met with your engineer, Mr. Michael Stocks, and Mr. Robert
Pierce of Wetland Science Applications, on your property adjacent to stony
Creek at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 301 and US 54
Bypass, in Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. The purpose of the site
inspection was to review a preliminary wetland determination on the property
and to determine the portion of the property that would be considered adjacent
to Stony Creek for the purpose of the applicability of a nationwide general
permit.
Mr. Pierce's preliminary wetland determination indicated that the
wetlands on the site to the north of the floodway line are associated with
defined channels that are tributary to stony Creek. These wetlands are not
part of a large continuum of waters or wetlands extending from Stony Creek,
nor does Stony Creek have the greatest hydrologic influence or exchange with
these wetlands. Therefore, these wetlands are not considered adjacent to
Stony Creek, and impacts within these wetlands north of the floodway line are
eligible for authorization under the nationwide general permit for headwaters
and isolated waters discharges.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Alsmeyer, telephone (919)
876-8441, extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Mgmt.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
"Appian Consulting Engineers
Attn: Mr J Michael Stocks
Po Box 7966
Rocky Mount NC 27804-0966
o.
Pnnied on W Recycled Paper
CJNYlKU E OF SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD
RIGHT Of WAY IS FLASH-EDGECOMBE MINTY LINE
TO LEOc-
DCKY MOUNT [,.,,, POf' 1
24 ,2osJ
POP. 41,283 OGECOMIE 17,02e
NASH COUNTY
NORTH, CAROLINA
PREPARED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS-PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SCALE
T 01 2 ] 4 HIES
0 05 1 MULE
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
LEGEND
E
PRtMDNE OR UNIMPROVED ROAD
GRADED AND DIANED ROAD
---? 500. GRAVEEOR STONE SURFACED ROAD
HARD SURFACED ROAD
4 LANE UNDIVIDED WCHWAY
DIVIDED HIGHWAY
HIGHWAY WITH FRONTAGE ROADS
? A

F FULLCONTROI ACCESS

F r FEDERAL AID NTERSIAII ROAD
F(D(RAL AA PRIMARY ROAD
FMS FEDERAL AD SKONDART ROAD
IAU
NS
FEDERAL AID URMN
N0NSYSTEM ROAD
- Fir - "OlICIED IOCATION
NTERSECnoN DISTANCE
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
DETAILED HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
2D U.& NUMBERED HIGHWAY
B U, S. NUMBERED BICYCLE ROUTE
41 NC NUMBERED HIGHWAY
((??
M}i?
1 N.C. NUMBERED BICYCLE ROUTE
I0Qr MERSTATE MERCwwGE NUMBER
"c" SKONDART ROAD NUMBER
E TAE UNDERGROUND CABLE
RAILROAD, ANY NUMBER Of TRACKS
USED IT SINGLE OPERATING COMPANY
'ABROAD. ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
USED 6Y MORE THAN ONE OPERATING
COMPANY ON SAME OR ADJACENT
R IGHTSOF- W AY
RAILROAD STATION
Jl. GRADE CROSSING
UNDERPASS
---l?F-- OVERPASS
RAILROAD TUNNEL
O ARMY. NAYY,OR MARINE CORPS FIELD
O COMM, OR MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
4 MARKED AUKIUART FIELD
HANGAR ON FILLEK B- N SYMBOL)
{?... NI? FREE OR TOLL FERRY
4 LIGWKOUSE
COAST GUARD STATION
CANAL
NARROW STREAM
WIDE STREAM
DAM WITH LOCK
DAM
1
Q
RESERVOIR, PONO,OR LAKf
37tJ ;• .? PROMINENT PEAK NUMERALS
INDICATE ELEVATION
_ ROAD THROUGH MOUNTAIN PASS
HIGHWAY IRIOGE.OVEK 20 FT.
DRAW SPAN ON FRIDGE
HIGHWAY TUNNEL
= FORD
STATE LINE

COUNTY ENE
CITY LIMITS
RESERVATION OR PARK BOUNDARY
INSET AREA
- UNINCORPORATED CENSUS
"""•° "•""? DESIGNATEDPIACE
Q COUNTY SEAT
O OTHER TOWNS AND VILLAGES
A TRIANGVLATIOI4 STATION
INCORPORATED CITY Ol VILLAGE
? (OFNERAUIID)
i SCHOOL
1 CHURCH
j CHURCH WITH CEMETERY
•
•T• CEMETERY
? HOSPITAL
CORRECTIONAL OR PENAL NSTN.
• HJGMWAY044AGJ OR MANY. TARO
Q HIGHWAY DIV. OR DIST. OffECE
d WEIGHT STATION
* PATROL STATION
A REST AREA
O MONUMENT-S MAIL HISTORICAL SITE

j
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
SIT S A
INC
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
October 6, 1995
Ms. Kathryn T. Looney
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Looney:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form,. a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of
your office's response to that notice. The COE subsequently authorized that project under
NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Pie ce, Ph.D.
President

Encl. as
G
0

Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
October 6, 1995
Mr. Charles Oravetz
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Rivers Island
Beaufort, NC 2851.6
Dear Mr. Oravetz:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form, a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. The COE subsequently authorized that project
under NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Pi rce, Ph.D.
President

0
Encl. as
-10-
U -L/ Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
WS A P.O. Box 1022
INC Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
1 _" 1? [phone]
October 6, 1995
Mr. David Brook
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Pursuant to the preconstruction notification requirements of 33 CFR 330, Appendix
A, this advises you that the Tuscarora Corporation is seeking authorization from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26 to discharge fill into waters of the U.S.
I am enclosing a Joint Application Form, a site location map, and a site plan showing the
limits of waters of the U.S. and location of proposed development.
The activity now proposed is a modification of an earlier plan which was the subject
of a notice to your office dated June 25, 1992. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of
your office's response to that notice. The COE subsequently authorized that project under
NWPs 14 and 26 on December 7, 1992 (Action ID. 199300379).
Please contact our office if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely yours,
I"
Robert J. Pi rce, Ph.D.
President
Encl. as
- 11 -
a
0
Preliminary Mitigation Plan
Village Green, Rocky Mount, NC
Introduction
The Village Green project will impact a total of 8.42 acres of mixed
hardwood/softwood wetland habitat. Approximately 4.17 acres was filled under Action
199300379. Mitigation approved under the previous authorization included the construction
of 1.09 acres of wetlands and 0.59 acres of nonwetland waters. For reasons explained in a
letter dated February 6, 1995 from J. Michael Stocks (Appian Consulting Engineers, PA) to
Eric Alsmeyer and because of the change in project purpose identified in this PCN, that
mitigation has not been constructed. The remaining 4.25 acres of impact identified in this
PCN is proposed and the subject of this PCN under NWP 26.
Q When the need arose to seek additional authorization under NWP 26, we realized that
one, large, comprehensive mitigation package covering all of the impacts of the entire project
would provide much greater ecological benefits than fragmented smaller units of habitat
development. Because the balance of the project site that is not to be disturbed consists
primarily of mature hardwood forest (both upland and wetland), only limited onsite
compensatory mitigation is ecologically appropriate.
Corps regulations at 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, C. 13. (f)(2) state in part "To the
extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation banking and other forms of
mitigation including contributions to wetland trust funds, which contribute to the restoration,
creation, replacement, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands. Furthermore, examples of
mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include but are not limited to: reducing the
size of the project; establishing buffer zones to protect aquatic resource values; and replacing
the loss of aquatic resource values by creating, restoring and enhancing similar functions and
values." The mitigation plan that we now propose includes three elements: preservation,
construction and enhancement.
Preservation
Except for an existing sanitary sewer easement right-of-way, the land south of the
Proposed Floodway (Figure 1) is mature, hardwood forest. It consists of a mix of both
wetlands and nonwetlands. This area consisting of 26 acres directly contiguous to Stoney
Creek will be set aside for perpetual preservation by permanent deed restrictions. With the
exception of possible future actions designed to enhance the resources natural attributes, all
activities (including logging} will be expressly prohibited. If a willing and suitable resource
agency or conservancy organization can be identified, the land will be deeded over, fee
simple.
0

a
0
Construction/Enhancement
Onsite - To meet the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), stormwater
from the entire facility will be channelled through an onsite facility. The footprint identified
for the Storm Water Management Facility in Figure 1, has been sized large enough to allow
for the construction of wetlands within its confines. Since some of the natural functions of the
wetlands being impacted are to desynchronize flood waters and to enhance water quality by
increasing sedimentation and the removal of nutrients and waterbom pollutants, incorporation
of wetland features into stormwater facilities is a logical design element to replace lost
function. While innovative planting of wetland vegetation in stormwater facilities have been
used successfully in other regions of the country, their use in the Rocky Mount area has been
limited.
Two conceptual designs will be explored with DEM. The first will be a retention
facility with a wide shallow bench on the perimeter planted with species typical of
semipermanent wetland conditions. The second possible design will be a temporary detention
facility that is completely vegetated with species typical of seasonal wetlands which can
withstand brief periods of inundation and longer periods with saturated or drier conditions.
The modification of the stormwater facility is considered to be a demonstration project.
Wetlands developed through this design have not been incorporated into the calculation of
mitigation ratios.
Offsite - Because of the limited opportunity to replace habitat functions onsite, we
sought offsite opportunities that would provide ecologically sound compensation for the loss
of 8.42 acres of waters of the United States. Our goal was to provide a meaningful
contribution to wildlife habitat as close to the project site as possible. Guidance from the
Corps field officer indicated that restoration of a previously drained wetland area would be
most desirable.
We contacted the NRCS offices of Nash, Shelton Hull and Edgecombe Counties (Mr.
A. B. Whitley) in an attempt to find prior converted cropland (PC) that might be suitable for
mitigation. A 150-acre farm in Tarboro, NC owned by Mr. Bellmont Murphrey was
identified. While the farm is for sale, the Corps field officer indicated that its location 25 - 30
miles from Rocky Mount is too far.
Q Mr. Whitley also identified two other sites that had been clear-cut 2 - 4 years ago and
overseeded with loblolly pine. Both are revegetating naturally and are further distance from
the project site than the proposed mitigation site.
In addition to the sites discussed above, we also contacted the U.S. Department of the
Interior concerning the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina.
a -2-
0
While the Refuge staff were receptive to further discussions of a cash contribution or other
form of mitigation support for needed restoration work, the Corps field officer indicated that
it was not a preferable option because of the distance from Rocky Mount.
The proposed mitigation site is a 41.5 acre tract that was clear-cut earlier this year. It
is approximately 5 linear miles from the project site (Figure 2) on Reges Store Road (Figure
3). The property is bounded on the east by Pig Basket Creek at a point only 1500 feet from its
confluence with Stoney Creek and, thus, is in the same watershed as the project. A 130-feet
wide CP&L easement crosses the rear of the property from northwest to southeast.
Approximately 12 acres are located northeast of the CP&L easement.
A delineation was conducted on the property in September 1995 and revealed that
approximately 22 acres qualifies as wetlands under the 1987 Corps Manual. Wetland limits
are depicted on Figure 4. As indicated there is a good interspersion of wetland and
nonwetland with a over a mile of wetland/nonwetland edge. Much of the area has been
logged. Stumps remain in place. The logged area has been overseeded with loblolly pine.
Three soils are mapped (Allison 1989) for the area and their presence has been field
verified (see data sheets, Appendix M1). A portion of soil map sheet 8 depicting the property
is provided as Figure S. Wetland areas are found on Meggett loam, frequently flooded and
Q Tomotley fine sandy loam. These are the same soils as underlay the wetlands that will be
impacted by the Village Green Project. The higher reaches of the tract are underlain by
Altavista sandy loam, 0 - 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded. Altavista has a listed seasonal high
Q water table of 1.5 to 2.5 feet from December to March. Meggett and Tomotley both have a
seasonal high water table of 0 - 1.0 feet from November to April and December to March,
respectively. Meggett floods frequently for long duration from December to April while
Tomotley only floods rarely. On September 9, 1995, at a time when groundwater should be at
its seasonal low elevation, it was observed at 60 inches below the surface in the Altavista and
Meggett soils and at 56 inches below the surface in the Tomotely soils.
If left in its existing state, the site will become a loblolly pine plantation with an
intermix of red maple and sweetgum in the overstory. After sufficient years of growth, the
area would be clear-cut and the process begun again. While this scenario does provide some
habitat value, we believe that habitat functions can be greatly increased by active
management.
Our plan involves several elements. First the entire property would be purchased from
the current owners (we hold an option to buy). Active management as described below would
be completed by May 1996. If a willing and suitable resource agency or conservancy
organization can be found, the property will be deeded, fee simple, to it. Alternatively,
permanent deed restrictions would be placed on the title prohibiting in perpetuity all
disruptive practices except for selective harvesting consistent with sound forest management
and wildlife practices. In either case a monitoring program will be established to follow the
0
0
tract until we document three consecutive years with at least an average of 320 healthy trees
per acre (<10 % softwoods) with no more than an average of 20 percent by any one species.
At any point that survival drops below the specified density, replanting will be conducted.
Initial Management - Soil disturbance will be kept to a minimum. Most of the
loblolly seedlings will be removed. Occasional groves will be retained for diversity. Four
moat-like linear depressions will be excavated either by conventional equipment or placed
explosive charges and planted to create semipermanent to permanent flooded wetland
conditions. These will be constructed in the nonwetlands immediately adjacent to the western
and northern wetland boundaries. All excavated materials will be removed to and contoured
on the upland to provide additional relief. The perimeters of these depressions will be planted
with shrub species (e.g., alder, dogwood, willow) to promote thickets suitable for passerine
bird nesting. The depressions will provide habitat for amphibians and waterfowl that
currently is lacking on the property. Approximately 5 acres of depressional wetlands will be
constructed.
The portion of the tract from the road to the CP&L easement will be planted with a
variety of native species. In the lower reaches along the eastern edge of the property, bald
cypress and tupelo will predominate. In the intermediate elevations a mix of pin oak, water
oak, willow oak, and green ash, will be planted. At the interface between the wetlands and
nonwetlands, river birch, sycamore, persimmon and American holly will be added to the mix.
Occasional groves of eastern cottonwood and/or black willow will be planted to provide some
rapid growing species of short life-span that will produce cavity nesting habitat. The highest
elevation upland buffers will be planted with red and white oaks and American holly. No
more than 20 percent of the trees will be of one species. All of the land to the northeast of the
CP&L easement will be allowed to revegetate naturally.
Continuing Management - During the period after initial management is completed
until the monitoring program is concluded, the tract will be managed to enhance the growth
of desirable species. Throughout the property scattered volunteers of red maple and sweet
gum will be retained at densities of less than 20 percent. Other hardwood volunteers will be
retained. Undesirable volunteers will be culled by hand at yearly intervals. Replanting of
desirable species will be implemented as needed when the average total numbers of trees per
acre drops below 320 and/or species diversity drops and one species constitutes more than 20
percent of the average total.
Monitoring
An as built report will be submitted to the COE within 30 days of completion of the
initial management activities.
U Monitoring will be conducted annually for the period from after initial management
plans are completed until three successive years with at least an average of 320 trees per acre
and no more than 20 percent of any one species are recorded.
0 -4-

'
Hydrology will be monitored with three automated recording monitoring wells
installed at strategic locations. Ground and surface water elevations will be recorded on a
daily basis.
Vegetation will be sampled annually each fall in 22 randomly positioned 0.05 acre
plots. Numbers and species identification of all healthy trees in each plot will be recorded.
Permanent photostations will be established at the beginning of the monitoring
program. Photographs at each station will be taken during each monitoring event.
A monitoring report will be submitted to the COE within 30 days of each monitoring
event.
Final Design Specifications
Prior to beginning construction of the proposed Village Green project, final mitigation
design specifications, species list and planting scheme and planting schedule will be provided
to the COE for final approval.
Mitigation Areas and Ratios
Onsite Preservation (wetland & buffer) 26 3.09:1
Stormwater Enhancement
Offsite Wetland Construction 5 0.60:1
Offsite Wetland Enhancement 17 2.02:1
Offsite Buffer Enhancement 9 1.07:1
Offsite Wetland Preservation 5 0.60:1
Offsite Buffer Preservation 5 0.60:1
Overall Mitigation Totals 68 7.98:1
Final Mitigation Plan

This is a preliminary mitigation plan. It remains flexible to accommodate any
practicable modifications that the COE believes will improve it. The final plan will be
completed after authorization under NWP 26 of the Village Greens revised project. No new
construction work on the Village Green project will commence until after approval of the
final mitigation plan by the COE.
0 -5-
-?" cJs
49
30A
u
t7
r
N
q
D a
N o
n
z CL
/ ,ga?pGE N d
Q ? O
°O
10
0
U
;3 a w o
Ul Q O
i
?s' S ; 1 tqr m Z W
o
r ? r
ca
a
4
r
n
2
W
7

I CT)
`I
L:

0

CENTE4ENE Of SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD
LIGNT OF WAY IS NASH.EDGECOMBE COON" UNE
10 LEGGETT -
OCKY MOUNT fOf' z4,?osl
POP. 41,283 [=I:.mIE 7.07
NASH COUNTY
NORTH, CAROLINA
PREPARED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS-PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
1E??
tj.] IN COOPERATION WITH THE
f4J1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SCALE
1 0 1 Z 3 4 MULES
0 03 1 MILE
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
Figure 2. Location of Village Green project site and Reges Store Road mitigation site.
D
I
MwTTEV[ OI VNIMIROV(D ROAD
GRADED AND DRAINED ROAD
SCHR, GRAV(LOR STONE SURFACED ROAD
HARD SURFACED ROAD
4 LANE UNDIVIDED HIOHWAY
W"DHIGHWAY
HIGHWAY WITH IRON TAG[ ROADS
ECA

H FUtI CONTROL ACCESS

F.R FEDERAL AD INTERSTATE ROAD
f.s ao[ul AD PRYAARY ROAD
_ FEDERAL ART SECONDARY ROAD
AU
NS
FEDERAL AD URBAN
140NASYST[M ROAD
- E=P - PROTECTED tOCATK*
MERSECUON DISTANCE
Mo. IRAfFIC CIRCLE
HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
WAKED HIGHWAY M(RCHANGE
LEGEND
I
v NTERSTATE HIGHWAY
7p U.S. NUMBERED HIGHWAY
8 U, S. NUMBERED BICYCIE ROUTE
O HC NUMBERED HIGHWAY
((??
l.
J
? N.C. NUMBERED MCYCLE ROUTE
.
e RQr INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE NUMBER
"00 SECONDARY ROAD NUMBER
TEL 4 UNDERGROUND CABLE
RAILROAD. ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
USED BY SINGLE OPT RING COMPANY
RAILROAD. ANY NUMBER OF TRACKS
USED BY MORE THAN ONE OPERATIN G
COMPANY ON SAME OR ADJACENT
RIGHTS.Of. W AT
RAILROAD STATION
y
- GRADE CROSSING
-
__ UNDERPASS
" 1IE OVERPASS
RAILROAD TUNNEL
O ARMY, NAVY,OR MARINE CORPS FIELD
^
V CO- OR MUNKIPAE "PORT
+ MARKED AUXILIARY FIELD
HANGAR ON FIE [476- N SYMBOV
FREE OR TOLL FERRY
IIGMHOUSE
t COAST GUARD STATION
CANAL
NARROW STREAM
WIDE STREAM
`I M1 DAM WITH LOCK
Y DAM
O RESERVOIR. POND,OR LAKE
S/t7 .?•?
l PtOMNENT PEAK. NUMERALS
T
T
V
t, INDICA
A
ION
E ELE
_ ROAD THROUGH MOUNTAIN PASS
HIGHWAY BRLDGE,OVER 70 FT.
T^T'? DRAW SPAN ON IRIDGE
?4`4 HIGHWAY TUNNEL
-TL= FORD
STATE LNE
II
_ - - COUNTY wt
CITY LIMITS
RESERVATION OR PARK BOUNDARY
11111 AREA
l- - UNINCORPORATED CENSUS
DESIGNATED PLACE
O COUNTY SEAT
O OTHER TOWNS-0 VILLAGES
A TRUNGUlATION STATION
INCORPORATED CITY OR VILLAGE,
(GENtItAU2ED)
i SCHOOL
+ CHURCH
1 CHURCH WITH CEMETERY
, CEMETERY
? HOSPITAL
m CORRECTIONAL OR PENAL NSTN.
¦ HIGHWAY GARAGE OR MANT. YARD
Q HIGHWAY DIV. OR DUST. OFFICE
I( WEIGHT STATION
* PATROL STATKDN
REST AREA
O MONUMENT-SMALL HISTORICAL SITE
_U
W ?
,?oa
U
C n co O a
? ? rw a'r try tNnow ,tx)oY n' a o
to C3
O J \_ ? / Z
U) a _ Z
e'i
--
Cb 00"
?? v
?? • :! n E Lit N
Lu ' i
u a
?? \ l'\ u o U a tc)
o ?CO Zap
Jul
!^ 1 ? a
65
00
.-
U LU ! > O to
CD
N
> E CL 0 V lA
1
W ?. _L`? J E = N Z
?- V)
V) z
•? o
Er-
C) cl:
!2 .2
? N C N
E U
• c0 O N
O. L N L
SCALE
1 I
0 200 400 500 600 700 800 I I
TOTAL SITE AREA ® 41.5 Ac. W W
TOTAL SITE WETLANDS ? 22.33 Ac. W W W W
N j0•?1-Z?, E r W W W W W W ??`{
?5?0•? rY W W W W W W/
^? ? W W W W W W WS/?
\\ ?`?^ W W W W W W3
j \ \ 1 W?'? W W W W W ?.
1 /
??? •l? \ \ `J• W W ?? W W W p? ,
\? \ \ 1 W W W ? W ^'
\?? ' 11 ? \ \ \ \ 1
W/ ?71, W W W y
i \ \ 1 W W W J' I
\ \ ?„ NO TOPOGRAPHICAL OR `r `L•
fJ I W I \ \ 1 z_' WETLANDS DELENIATION
1 \ 4y d' ?I T OF POWERLINE t
f r W I 1 ?` \ \ GQ ??(pc \ \ o? W EASEMENT. hM o
WI 'O ??VI?yV_ \ ??? W W W SM N
Y I I W? J ?Rq y F W W W W W ^?
4 j I W! ?? ?? W \ \W W W W W
10.
\ .??????'?-="'V• W ?'? W W ?•`.-.r.. ter.-_ ' / WI \\W W W W \
v?a?T? ?\ W J•? `'. 11? W-'-'".Y' W W W 1D••J/ W W IIII ?U•
\ W W W W W W W W W W W W \ Nl W M
/ • ?., \ \ y
W W W W W W ?.. _W W W W W W , W J'? W
y
a ?W W W W W W W W W'•?W W W /%W W ? W
/O?,p. d• W `4 W W S7
?y
??. 'W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ?G? F
W W W W W W W W W W W ! W W W W . <
>W
? ? W W W W W W W W W W W W ?I W W W W W? '??
,7j9,/?iiW1? ?.l W W W W ?N?'?WS W W W W W W W W W/
/Q/P, k• y W W W W W W ?Y W W W W W W '. W W W JlrJ'
1 W W W W W ?_?"?_` W W W W W W W W/f
f -?? ?W W W W ??r.?-?W W W W W N W W f
N W W W W W '? ?1 W W W W
F h? W W W W W W W \\ ?II? II W W? W
= W W W W W W W \ W W W -y..
W W W W W W W ? / 1 /W W W (I
\\ 1
\ W W ? .? W W W W W WII`
\\ W ?... ' W W W W I W 4 Lk y ?1
{l W W W W W W? -c?O
1
TJ ? /? 1^ ` W W W W ? \
.\ W W W W W 1 NORTH
W W W W ?rw'\\
W W W W W r "' ?ti
W W W / f
.N W ,y y\Y
2__9TRST ETLAMD DWITIOPMON MAP
ACCIESS
WE GREEN
".?N 83'S4'36' W-- G1Q'? _---C-_."---
FIGURE 4
REGES STORE RD. - "s.R 1601 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF MMQATiON SITE
DEPICTING WETLAND BOUNDARIES.'
SHEET NUMBER 8
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
7?° :;:,
NaC
CutanOFlu GOA ' -
Ud
t?i. tiro /fl; ?' L,
607 Ud f It;
?..
i .tl +R.9.'Tjs .q .. ? ". i2 .Nac Ud l iT +z'WeB
r
"•?' - - BORROW PIT- ??
NOB ??. ?BORROW PIT rr . .
L? 34,J??,?''?'?'?i`7?...+? N?y GeCy, ? •. tco9 its
- ,?,? YV'fi` ? _?,.. ? `.". r wt ....?'r +C... ixr• iJ ? N ? ' {- ?.".tylx/e6 ?
L'.?.j F ?tl ,; ?- i +i--: ??' ??? , .? 5}?t,?, ?' _7'Whw ,?. •,= s. r ',: ..
r t < i ?+ ?., WoA
e >NdB ' ', r ?: Z i' i WoA t Q
Rd - ?, eh'' GeC
F-0Fi eB.. GeC' ± © jw r t r?i ?W`
° Nr8
Ge6 r +at? "Wli?r f' '? r.Y '1 {fit ';?
5.?t'sr?SA . r TNoA.'?^?tE? (( ??'!)V GCE Y, y ;{ tii ?? 1+11 atfr
'.'yJ?' ? %2y - `a'? - y3i ? w"•?' b+ r 's? f ?.i "? 1 ? ? ' ` i I s. y tb?p ?1 ,.?
.fUd4{ T ?F t{iti `• ti?}To?- , Loy' ??w lLfGr?l'Mrv
r_a p iJn6 AaAl u w .O zz1l?rt? rsv ??G t?i-? r
,I-y ?•?• ?,tU2 .?? 5}Y ? 1.??I *<?,{?u*'_J'a ??Mt? ? ti r ?,*:???4 TJ'S _.y ?<` l' ?' ? ? ?,! ? f .
Ge8
Ud
2 J-;? Yr yt?J,?_l} L0r?r Ge6 CsF
y ?Q -1y`??4 + t« , tAr c <.? s X10; .>ti.? :' BOB-
AAJ
a TJaC
Uttd.: BOB 4r
N CaF IOB
Bob 4
BOB BoB Ra Y?ta
GeC ( Y UrNaC Fen '
BOB: . NOB
3oB Nr8 + ?O NnB "a '~ f Ur'
BoB
N BOB
11 o iii r _ Noe
ot3i
y x
BOB - t r ,tr '. °.'
Ral yytt' C-O < ua
C !? 1c Fau / L
Z
t _
BOB
NOA
BOB tt , Bo€ie
WeC
1 r p JR? f;r ?. s•-
'C, Nob
ON,
:. BOB Nr6 J?, Ud 4
V. 08
LANDFILL
x? NoB
aC^ Nr6
I?« ?eC E 1 S23
No6f
F b ,: Figure 5. Portion of Map Sheet 8 from the Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina,
tr depicting location of mitigation site.
` - --

0
Appendix M1
Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
a
i
FRI
li
N
? VILLAGE GREEN SITE
(US 64 & US 301 SITE)
0
0
o.

0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site sionificantl disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: 1
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ostrya Virginiana I FACU- 9. Ph tolacca americana 3 FACU
2. Pinus taeda l FAC 10. Parthenocissus uin uifolia 3 FAC
3. Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 FACW 11. Toxicodendron radicans 3 FAC
4. Ligustrum sinense 2 FAC 12. Grass s p. 3 -
5. Ostr a virQiniana 2 FACU- 13.
6. Vitis s p. 4 - 14.
7. Parthenocissus uin uefolia 4 FAC 15.
8. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-5. 7017o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 29 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No Hydrology
0
a
0
SOILS
e
s
s
0
r
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro fine sandv loam ,0-217o slopes Drainage Class: Moderately well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Aquic Paleudult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 10YR4/3 none - Fine Sand Loam, I fgr
3"-7" A 10YR5/3 none - Fine Sand Loam, I fgr
T'-12" BA 10YR6/4 none Sand Loam, Ifsbk
12"-23" Btl 10YR6/4 10YR5/6 F1F Sand Clay Loam, 2msbk
23"-29" Bt2 10YR6/3 10YR5/6 F1F Sand Clay Loam, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: A & B Horizons - many fine roots
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1'es' No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o'' Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes NO.)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ,No.
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Il
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers County: ash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significantl disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes N Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 2
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus hellos 1 FACW- 9.
2. Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 FACW 10.
3. Li uidambar st raciflua 1 FAC+ 1 l .
4. Pinus taeda 1 FAC 12.
5. Ilex decidua 2 FACW- 13.
6. Smilax rotundifolia 4 FAC 14.
7. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 10017,o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs x Inundated
Other x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June
and into July 1995.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Tomotley Loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes: No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5" A 10YR5/1 none - Loam, 1fQr
5"-10" BtgI 10YR5/2 10YR5/6 FID Sand Clay Loam, Ifsbk
10"-20" Bte2 10YR5/2 10YR5/6 C21) Sand Clay Loam, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Many pores - A horizon. B horizon - few fine and medium roots
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? y e No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland s No
Hvdric Soils Present? !Yes), No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification PF01A
8
I
u
it
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes N Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 3
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ost a virginiana 1 FACU- 9.
2. Fraxinus penns lvanica 1 FACW 10.
3. Morus rubra 2 FAC 11.
4. Crataegus aestvalis 2 OBL 12.
5. Lonicera ja onica 4 FAC- 13.
6. Bignonia ca reolata 4 FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 6017o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NIA (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 25 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrology
0
e
0
a
s
e
e
e
in
e
e
e
e
e
0
e
0
e
r
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Lynchburg Loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy siliceous th ermic Aeric Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes; No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" A 10YR513 - - Loam, I f
3"-10" E 10YR6/3 7.5YR5/6 FID Loam, 1fgr
10"-14" Bt2 10YR6/2 10YR616 FiF Loam, lfsbk
14"-18" Btl IOYR6/4 10YR616 C217 SCL, 1 msbk
18"-25" Bt2 I0YR6/4 10YR6/6, IOYR6/2 C2F SCL, 2msbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: A horizon -many fine roots
B horizon - many fine pores
No water at 25"
1
11
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ('`es) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Ec I I s this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes Noj
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes n
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.
0

H__
L
I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? e No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 4
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. uercus hellos 1 FACW- 9.
2. Pinus taeda 1 FAC 10.
3. Ulmus rubra 1 FAC 11.
4. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 12.
5. Cam psis radicans 4 FAC 13.
6. Ilex decidua 4 FACW- 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 10070
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
x Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 23 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June and
into July 1995.

Q
SOILS
s

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Megget Loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, mixed, thermic Typic Albagualf Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2" A I OYR2/2 - - Loam, i f
2"-6" A2 10YR5/2 - - Loam, 1 f-r
6"-12" Btgl 10YR6/1 10YR5/6, 10YR6/3 F1F Loam, Ifsbk
12"-20" Bts2 10YR6/1 10YR5/6 C2f Clay Loam, 2fsbk
20"-23" Btg3 10YR6/1 10YR516 C2f Clay, Massive

Hydric Soil Indicators: '
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: few fine roots.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? !Yes; No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? e? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland fe ' No
H dric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification - PFO1J.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

u

IJ
Q.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Wetlands Date: 7112/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Coun : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (?e, No Community ID:
Is the site sionificantl disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes i Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 5
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1 FACW 9. Lonicera ja onica 4 FAC-
2. uercus hellos 1 FACW- 10. Eu atorium ca illifolium 3 FACU
3. Acer rubrum 1 FAC 11.
4. uercus hellos 2 FACW- 12.
5. Dios ros virginiana 2 FAC 13.
6. Ulmus alata 1 FACU+ 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans 4 FAC 15.
8. Cam psis radicans 4 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 7017c
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 20 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No hydrology

sorts
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Goldsboro fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Moderately well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, loamy, siliceous, thermic Aquic Paleudult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped T e? es No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors. Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
04" A - 10YR4/2 - - Loam, 1 fir.
4"-10" BA 10YR5/3 - - Sand Loam, Ifsbk
10"-20" Bt 10YR5/6 10YR7/4 F1F Sand Clay Loam, 2fsbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (00. Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes C?•
Hvdric Soils Present? Yes Tlo
Remarks:
Two of three wetland indicators not present.
e
W
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Villa e Green Wetlands Date: 7/12/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & VRP State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 6
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 FACW 9. Vitus s p. 4 -
2. Quercus hellos 1 FACW- 10.
3. Li uidambar st raciflua 1 FAC+ 11.
4. Ulmus rubra 1 FAC 12.
5. Ilex decidua 2 FACW- 13.
6. Rubus s p. 2 - 14.
7. Carex s p. 3 - 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia 4 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 10070
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs x Inundated

Other x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 4 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Weather patterns have been wetter than usual for June and
into July, 1995.

SnTi S
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Tomotley loam Drainage Class: Poorly
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine, loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Ochraguult Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes) No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) fMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stnicture, etc.
0-4" A 10YR5/1 - - Loam, if .
4"-8" Btsl 10YR6/1 10YR5/6 C2F Sand Clay Loam, Ifsbk
8"-18"* Bte2 10YR6/1 10YR5/4 FIF Sand Loam, 2fsbk

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
x Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: *Oxidized root channels
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ;es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland /Yes No
Hvdric Soils Present? es ' No
Remarks:
Cowardin Classification - PF01A

MITIGATI SITE
(REGES STORE ROAD)
0
[7
dai

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8/95
A licant/Owner.. Appian Consulting Engineers Countv: Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y No Community ID:
Is the site significantl disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes %
_ Transect ID:
Is the area a otential Problem Area? Yes
0 Plot ID: 1
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
*1. Eu atorium ca illi olium 3 FACU 9. Fraxinus enns Ivanica 2 FACW
*2. Erigeron canadensis 3 FACU 10. Acer rubrum 2 FAC
*3. Lactuca canadensis 3 FAC- 11. Red to (Agrostis alba) 3 FACW
4. Rosa multiflora 2 UPL 12. C ernus filiculmis 3 FACU+
5. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 13.
6. Juncus tenuis 3 FAC 14.
7. Pinus taeda 3 FAC 15.
8. Ludwigia alternifolia 3 OBL 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). > 50c7o
Remarks: *Dominant species within plot. Pinus taeda regenerating on site.
HYDROLOGY
e
r"
(I
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Other Water Marks
x No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 of more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 60 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Augered down to
a depth of 60 inches before water began seeping in.
?6
cnrr.c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Meg ett (variant) Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Des No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No-)
Remarks:
This plot lacks sufficient wetland hydrology
?J
' SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: Appian Consulting Engineers Date: 9/8/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Project #: 1295044
County: Nash State: NC
Location: W. of SR1603 & 1601 and Pig Basket Creek, N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot 91
Soil Classification: Fine, mixed, thermic Typic Albagualfs
Soil Series: Meggett variant
AWT: 60.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 11.0" Slope: 2% Aspect: ---
Elevation: Drainage: Somewhat poorly Permeability: slow
Vegetation: See data sheet #1
.,, Borings terminated at 61 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH
(1N) MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERM NOTES
Al 0-2 IOYR 4/4 loam Ifgr mvfr mod
A2 2-6 10YR 5/6 7.5YR6/6 fld loam If.- r mfr mod m and c roots
E 6-I1 10YR 614 loam lfsbk mfr mod
Btgl 11-16 IOYR6/2 IOYR6/3 fIf &
7.5YR5/6 c2d clay loam lfsbk mfr mod
Btg2 16-29 10YR 6/1 7.5YR5/6 c2d clay loam 2msbk mfr mod
Btg3 29-35 N5 7.SYR5/6 c2d
& IOYR5/6 c2d clay 2msbk mfi low Mg. conc. - f
& c roots
Btg4 35-41 IOYR6/1 t0YR5/6 c2d clay 2msbk mfi low N5 - in root
channels, Mg.
conc.
Cg 41-61 N16 I0YR5/6 clay massive mfi v. slow Mg. conc.
(10YR4/1)

I J

E
Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben
DATE: 9/7/95

D

?I,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Count : Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? CYe5 No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: 2
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VRGRTATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. T ha latifolia 3 OBL 9.
2. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 10.
3. Sci us atrovirens 3 OBL 11.
*4. Saururus cernuus 3 OBL 12.
*5. Ludwi is alustris 3 OBL 13.
6. C ernus e throrhizos 3 OBL 14.
7. Mimulus alatus 3 OBL 15.
*8. Pol onum hydro i er 3 OBL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). > 50%a
Remarks: Dominant species within plot.
HYnROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
x Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 56 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
e
e
e
e
e
a
e

cnTT c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Tomotley sandy loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Ochraguults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped T e? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundnnce/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #2
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland es No
Hvdric Soils Present? Mes , No
Remarks:
This plot lacks sufficient wetland hydrology

SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: Appian Consulting Engineers Date: 9/8/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Project 4: 1295044
County: Nash State: NC
Location: W. of SRI 603 & 1601 and PisZ Basket Creek, N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot 92
Soil Classification: Fine, loamv, mixed thermic Tvpic Ochra!zuults
Soil Series: Tomotlev sandv loam
AWT: 56.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 2-7" Slope: 0-1% Aspect: ---
Elevation: Drainage: Poorly Permeability: slow
Vegetation: See data sheet 42
Borins terminated at 61 Inches
HORIZON DEPTH MATRIX MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERM NOTES
A 0-2 10YR 32 S.loam I m;r mvfr mod
E 2-7 10YR 5/3 10YR52 flf
& 7.5YR6/6
f1 d S.loam Ifsbk mfr mod f and c roots
Big1 7-12 10YR 611 7.5YR516 flf loam Imbk mfr mod f and c roots
Btg2 12-25 10YR6/1 IOYR6/6 c2f sc loam 2fsbk mfr mod slow med. roots
Btg3 25-32 10YR 511 I0YR5/6 c2f clay loam 2fmsbk mfi slow
Btg4 32-42 IOYR5/1 7.5YR5/6
c2d clay loam massive mfi slow Angular gravel
Btg5 42-55 IOYR6/1 N6,10YR5/6 sc loam 2fsbk mfr mod
Cg 55-61 1OYR6/1 10YR516 loamy sand 2fsbk mfr rapid sand lenses
(10YR4/1)

Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben DATE: 9/7/95
0
0

L
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Village Green Mitigation Site Search Date: 9/8/95
A licant/Owner: Appian Consulting Engineers Countv: Nash
Investigator: SFS & PSG State: N.C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye. No Community ID:
Is the site significant) disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (Slo Plot ID: 3
(if needed, explain on reverse)

VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Eu atorium ca illifolium 3 FACU 9.
2. Fraxinus enns lvanica 2 FACW 10.
3. Pol gonum h dro i er 3 OBL 11.
*4. Lactuca canadensis 3 FAC- 12.
5. Stellaria media 3 FACU 13.
*6. Lonicera 'a onica 3 FAC- 14.
7. Juncus tenuis 3 FAC 15.
8. Pinus taeda 2 FAC 16.
Percent of Dominent Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). < 509o
Remarks: Dominant species within plot
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: --- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 60 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: --- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC- Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Water table at
approximately 60 inches.
HYDROLOGY
9
ROTTS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Altavista variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorlv drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Aquic Hapludults Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? es No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: See Soil data sheet #3
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Circle) (Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes P0,
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes hi
H dric Soils Present? Yes Remarks:
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client Appian Consulting Engineers Date: 9/7/95
Project Name: Village Green Mitigation Site Search. Project #: 1295044 County: Nash
State: NC
Location: W. of SR1603 & 1601 and Pig Basket Creek, N side of SR 1601 Site/Lot: Plot #3
Soil Classification: Fine - loamy, mixed thermic Aquic Hapludults
Soil Series: Altavista varient
AWT: 60.0" Seasonable High Water Table: 9.0" Slope: 2% Aspect: -
Elevation: Drainage: Somewhat Poorly Permeability: moderate
Vegetation: See data sheet #3
Borings terminated at 60 Inches
s
A
e
e
e
e
in

HORIZON DEPl"E-I
(ten MATIZDC MOTTLES TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONSISTENCE PERM NOTES
A 0-6 10YR4/2 10YR4/4flf S.loam lfmgr mvfr mod
BA 6-9 10YR6/2 10YR5/6c2f S.loam lmsbk mfr mod
Btl 9-15 10YR5/4 10YR5/6 c2f
d:6/1 c2f c loam 2msbk mfr mod compacted, few
med roots
Bt2 15-33 10YR5/6 10YR6/1 flf cloam 2msbk mfr mod mica few mg.
stains, med,
roots
130 33-60 10YR5/6 10YR6/1 c2f cl to c lfsbk mfi mod. slow Some gravel-14"
(few), root
channels are
gleyed 5GY4/1

Comments:
DESCRIBED BY: Steven F. Stokes & Pamela S. Gribben DATE: 9/7/95

i

ORIGINAL PERMIT APPROVAL
?Lv

0
C?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO December 7, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300379 and Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 (Road Crossing)
and 26 (Headwaters and Isolated Waters)
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
c/o The Tuscarora Corporation
P.O. Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
Reference your application of October 13, 1992, received November 4, 1992,
for Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material within
waters of the United States, causing the loss of a total of 4.17 acres of
wetlands (0.06 for road crossings and 4.11 for site development) adjacent to,
and above the headwaters of, an unnamed tributary to Stony Creek, for
construction of the proposed Village Green development, in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of US 64 and US 301 bypasses, in Rocky Mount,
Nash County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
b. the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition: For discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was also provided for fills for roads
crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special
aquatic sites) provided:

0
i
-2-
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United states is limited to a filled
area of no more than one-third acre. Furthermore, no more than a total of 200
linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
C. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent
the restriction of, and to withstand, expected highflows and the movement of
aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a water of
the United States; and
e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the permittee
notifies the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general
condition.
Your work is authorized by these nationwide permits provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, and with the
measures stated in the enclosed August 17, 1992 letter from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. These nationwide permits do not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management at [phone] regarding a State Water Quality Certification.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.

-3-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with enclosure):
Appiati Consulting Engineers, P.A.
A n.: Mr. Mike Stocks
V.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Larry Odom
Nash County Planning Dept.
Nash County Agricultural Center, Rm. 111
Nashville, NC 27856
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
s
L
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly
maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and siltation Controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation
controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during
construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the
movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody,
including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or
other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and Case-by-case Conditions. The activity must comply with any
regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer and any
case specific conditions added by the Corps.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the
National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by
Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the
river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers
may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
Fil

8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal
rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty
fishing and hunting rights.
9. Water Quality Certification. In certain states, an individual state
water quality certification must be obtained or waived.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal
zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived.
11. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-Federal permittees shall
notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might
be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on
the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of
t

0
-2-
the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species
can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service.
12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect Historic Properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places
is authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of
33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District
Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to
believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the
location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State
Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see
33 CFR 330.4(8)).
13. Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is
repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank
stabilization.
14. Shellfish Production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur
in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is
directly related to a shellfish harvest activity authorized by nationwide
permit.
.r 15. Suitable Material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist
of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material
discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
16. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable
at the project site (i.e., on-site), unless the District Engineer has approved
a compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.
17. Spawning Areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons
must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
18. Obstructions of High Flows. To the maximum extent practicable,
discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or
expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary
purpose of the fill is to impound waters).
19. Adverse Impacts from Impoundments. If the discharge creates an
impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the
accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
B
0
-3-
20. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory
waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
21. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
The temporary placement of excavated or fill material in waters or wetlands
will be for the absolute minimum period of time necessary to accomplish the
work.
NOTES:
1. Qualification for and issuance of a nationwide permit does not relieve the
applicant of the need to obtain any other required State or local permits.
2. Should all or part of a proposed activity be located within an Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) as designated by the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission, a CAMA permit is required from the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management. Should an activity within or potentially
affecting an AEC be proposed by a Federal agency, a consistency determination
pursuant to 15 CFR 930 must be provided to the North Carolina Division of
Coastal-Management at least 90 days before the onset of the proposed activity.
REGIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Notification to the Wilmington District Engineer will be required, and the
applicant must receive written approval before starting work.
a. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer as early as
possible and shall not begin the activity:
(1) until notified by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed
under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the District or Division
Engineer; or
(2) if notified by the District or Division Engineer that an individual
permit is required; or
(3) Unless 30 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the
notification and the prospective permittee has not received notice from the
District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed
under the NWP may be modified, suspended or revoked only in accordance with
the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
b. The notification must be in writing and include the following information
and any required fees:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of the prospective permittee;
-4-
(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct
and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other
NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to
be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity; and
(4) A delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
2. Restoration plans, including a schedule for the restoration, shall be
submitted to the District Engineer at the time of notification.
3. The total width of the access corridor, excavation, and temporary fill
area is restricted to no more than 40 feet and must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. For site specific projects, such as foundation
construction for transmission towers, construction areas will be limited to no
more than 150 feet square per site and preexisting contours must be
reestablished.
4. All utility lines must be either completely elevated or buried so as not
to impact hydrology.
5. Stabilization is required immediately on completion of each individual
crossing.
STATE CONSISTENCY CONDITIONS
1. To be eligible for this permit, all utility lines must be either
completely elevated or buried so as not to impact hydrology.
i
2. Removal of temporary excavated or fill materials in waters or wetlands and
stabilization is required immediately on completion of each individual
crossing.
3. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands and waters is
limited to 40 feet in width under this permit and must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
4. Permanent access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width
practicable and may not exceed 10 feet in width except in locations specified
on maps for vehicular access purposes.
5. Established erosion control practices shall be utilized to prevent
violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTU's in
streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management; 25 NTU's in all saltwater classes and
all lakes and reservoirs and 10 NTU's in trout waters).
?E

-5-
6. The applicant must receive written concurrence from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management that the proposal is certified under the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
7. If the proposed activity is within the North Carolina Coastal Area, the
applicant must receive written concurrence from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management that the activity is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
GENERAL CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands and waters is
limited to 40 feet in width and must be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
2. Written concurrence is required from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
3. Permanent access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width
practicable and may not exceed 10 feet in width except in locations specified
on maps for vehicular access purposes.
4. Established sediment and erosion control practices will be utilized to
prevent violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50
NTU's in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, 25 NTU's in all saltwater
classes and all lakes and reservoirs and 10 NTU's in trout waters).
5. Work plans must be legible and sized to 8-1/2 by 11 inches.
6. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters of the State until the concrete has hardened.
7. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to this Certification in
order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards.
8. Concurrence from the North Carolina Division of Environmental management
that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire three
years from the date of the cover letter from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
0

.. ? e„aANru•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary December 22, 1992 Acting Dimctor
Mr. Robert D. Gorham, Jr.
The Tuscarora Group
Post Office Box 912
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Dear Mr. Gorham:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands or Waters
commercial development
Nash County
DEM Project tt 92651
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 4.21 acres of wetlands or waters for
commercial development located at southwest quadrate of US 301
bypass and US 64 in Nash County, we have determined that the
proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 2671 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the
General Certification is attached. This Certification may be
used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Q Nationwide Permit No. 26. Additional conditions are that 1)
monitoring and wetland impact should follow Appian Map CE-2, Oct.
1992, and conditions 3,4, and 5, 2) Annual monitoring reports
will be submitted by Jan. 1 of each year and document percent
survivability of trees by location and species and 3) Applicant
must certify that wetland hydrology exists at all mitigation
sites.
.If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919/733-1786.
Sincerely,
P eston Howard, Jr P.E.
APH:JD
Attachment REGI&AL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 9191395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telcplione 919-733-7015
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
cc: •Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
C;h'N1JkZAL C l?It'1'lE'1C;A T I U N I:'VI< I'I<Uk:" L,161.151, I_.
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 26 (EiEADWAT_77RS
AND ISOLATED WETLANDS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity - with -.he
requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 cthe
United States and subject to the-North Carolina Division of nvi-
ronmental Management Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500
and 15A NCAC 2B .0109 and .0201 for the discharge of fill mE:e-
rial to navigable waters and adjacent wetland areas which ar
above the headwaters or to %.,etland areas that are not a part of
the surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable
waters of the United States (i.e., isolated wetlands) as
described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (26) of the Corps of Engi-.
neers regulations (i.e., Nationwide Permit No. 26) The category
of activities shall include any fill activity in these headwatei:-s
and isolated wetland and water areas where the activity does not
result in the loss or substantial modification of 10 acres or
more of waters of the United States, including wetlands. This
Certification replaces Water Quality Certification Number 21'76
issued on November 5, 1987.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified
category of activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306
and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
acccrdance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of greater than
one-third of an acre of such waters, including wetlands,
requires a written concurrence from the Division of Envi-
ronmental_ Management.
2. Proposed fill or substantial modification of equal to or
le'ss..than one-third of an acre of such -raters, incl,.i.ding
wetlands, does-not require written concurrence from the
Division of Environmental Management.
3. Proposed fill of greater than one acre in SA, trout,
HQ4d, OR47, WS-I and P1S-II watersheds requires public
notice and an individual 401 Certification from the Divi-
sion of Environmental Management;
4. That established sediment and erosion control pract.ces
are utilized to prevent violations of the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in streams and
rivers not designated as trout waters by DEM; 25 NT(Is in
all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10
NTUs in trout waters);
5. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to
projects with greater than one-third of an acre impact
which are proposed under this Certification in order to
ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and
effluent standards;
6. Concurrence from DEM this Certification applies to an
individual project shall expire three years from the date
0
9
i 03,n13038 ;
of the cover letter from DEM.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set
forth by a specific fill project shall result in revocation of
ra this Certification.for the project.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management may require submission of a formal application for
individual certification for any project in this category of
activity, if it is determined that the project is likely to have
a significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the
waters so that existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters
are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or
group of applications prior to a Certification decision if deemed
in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Caro-
lira :division of En.vironmenta]. 114anagement .
This is the 21st day of January, 1992
DIVISION Or ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
i/ e`f c l ?_
By
George T.L&trerett, Director
gencert.26
jrd/gc
WQC= 2671
Is

Gi
t?ENT OF lti TAKE
IDE ,ca
F?yp United States Department of the Interior a
Q
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 0 0
a y .9 Raleigh Field Office
4RCN ? ?0
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 17, 1992
Mr. J. Michael Stocks
Appian Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 7966
Rocky Mount, North
Dear Mr. Stocks:
Carolina 27804-0966
This is in response to your letter dated June 25, 1992, requesting the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide information on the potential
impacts to Federally-listed species from the proposed Village Green shopping
center, to be located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 64 and U.S. Highway
301 ByPass in Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531-1543) (Act).
During your August 11, 1992 site visit with biologist Kate Looney of this
office, it was agreed that the following measures will be implemented to avoid
project-related sediment input into Stony Creek and potential impacts to the
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon): (1) State approved
best management practices for proper erosion control; (2) construction will
remain outside the FEMA 100 year flood.plain; (3) the site will be sloped
away from Stony Creek; and (4) the stormwater retention and detention pond
will be allowed to drain into the wetlands adjacent to the site and away from
'- Stony Creek.
D Based on implementation of the above measures and our August 11, 1992, site
visit, the Service concurs that the project, as presently proposed, is not
likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed endangered species.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this
O review; or,. (3)• a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
may be affected by.the identified action.
We.appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments during the early
stages of the project. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Looney.
Sincerel,v,
Tom Augaptilg?r
Acting Supervisor
0
a
?. i
e
e
x L t t1
Received
1 1
Due
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
NATIONWIDE 404 PERMIT REVIEW
APPLICANT• ® ? 7-/? 9?-
" Appian Consulting Engineers
PO Box 7966
Rocky Mount NC 27804
Attn: Mike Stocks
Project Location: NASH COUNTY/Rocky Mount
Proposed Project: Shopping Center
We have received the application for the above project from the
applicant/Division of Environmental Management (circle one) and our
comments are noted below.
Additional information is needed (maps,
photographs, other)..
No comment.
Signed -
Date / Z
cc: Wayne Wright, ACOE (if info requested)
s
7/02
109 East ones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
RECENE" J J L 1 1992
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
December 18, 1995
Mr. John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
?Fn
to099
rs
Reference is made to your letter dated December 12, 1995, to Mr. Robert D. Gorham,
Jr. I can understand if it is your agency's policy to address correspondence to property
owners. However, since I am listed as the Agent on the joint application form, have prepared
the original submittal and the submittal received by your office on November 8, 1995 and am
the individual that must respond to the referenced letter, I assumed that I would at least be
copied on any correspondance from your office. Instead your office has chosen to discuss this
project with and copy to Mr. Steven Stokes of KCI Technologies. While Mr. Stokes has done
sonic ancillary work on this project, he is not the point of contact. Perhaps the fact that I
extended the professional courtesy to you of not calling frequently to inquire as to the status
of your review, led you to believe that I was no longer interested/involved with this project.
So there will be no further misunderstandings, I am the agent for this project unless or until
notified in writing to the contrary. Please copy me on all future correspondence. It is
inappropriate for your office to discuss with or forward correspondance to Mr. Stokes on this
project.
With regards to the specifics of the referenced letter, I have a number of concerns.
First, you state that you have identified "significant uses which would be removed by this
project": specifically, water storage, stream bank stabilization, pollutant removal and wildlife
value. The term "significant" suggests a statistical comparison to sonic undefined reference. I
believe that the wetlands proposed to be impacted have little bank stabilization function for
Stony Creek. Rather it is the land adjoining the Creek which we have proposed to preserve in
a natural state that provides that benefit. The fact that the impacted wetlands are connected by
dredged channels most likely has increased the flow of water to Stony Creek and thereby has
exacerbated the problem of stream bank erosion.
Similarly, while the existing condition does have some wildlife value and it may be
significantly more than the buildings and parking lots that are proposed, the fact that the
property is bounded on the North by Interstate 64, on the cast by Route 301 on the west by
appartment buildings and other structures, and on the south by a deeply incised stream and
then a shopping mall in my opinion suggests that the actual wildlife value is limited
especially if compared to a similar site in rural North Carolina.
Furthermore, you may recall the strong septic oiler we encountered in the wetlands in
the northwest corner of the property during our field visit on November 2, 1995. Apparently,
there is some uncontrolled source of sewage flowing onto the property from upstream. I
suspect that such a condition reduces the overall wildlife value of the wetland as well as
contaminates Stony Creek when the water flows through the excavated ditch to it.
I believe that the proposed project will actually enhance the functions of water storage
and polli.itant removal through the, stormwater facilities that have been proposed. These will
collect water not only from the development onsite, but also the runoff from Interstate 64.
Water flowing from the project site will be controlled and polished: something that the
existing conditions with channalized ditches can not accomplish.
You indicate that there is "insufficient evidence" in your files to conclude that the
project must be built as planned. As agreed to on November 2, 1995, I provided you with my
noneconomist's summary of costs and revenues for a number of alternatives. My conclusion
after discussing the economics with the owner was that only the proposed alternative was
practical. Apparently, the Corps of Engineers has agreed with this position since on
November 14, 1995, it conditionally authorized the work under NWP 26.
During our meeting of November 2, 1995, you indicated that you would send me a
copy of your 401 implementing regulations as well as your functional assesmcnt
documentation. Since I have never received the 401 regulations, I am uncertain what
constitutes sufficent evidence to satisfy your alternatives' analysis. The economic's analysis
that I sent you in November was never intended to be comprehensive. One alternative that I
assesed had net revenues of $3,570 per acre, yet I concluded it was not practicable. You have
developed an alternative that would produce $1,352 per acre net revenues and concluded that
it is practicable. In reaching my conclusion that $3,570 per acre revenue was not a
practicable alternative, I considered that the revenues generated would be subjected to
reduction from income tax and that the owner had the right to receive reasonable
compensation for the hundreds of hours he has devoted to this project. These factors,
however, were beyond my expertise as an ecologist to develop. In order to refine this analysis
and to hopefully fulfill the requirements of your regulations, we have retained a certified
public accountant (CPA) to prepare an analysis of the proposed alternative and yours. Please
FAX to me at 301 349-2154 the name and address of your economist that will be reviewing
this analysis so that I can expedite delivery of it upon completion.
Apparently your decision to move towards denial of the 401 certification is based in
part on the fact that the mitigation for the original permit has not been completed. You may
recall that we discussed this at length on November 2, 1995. I explained that I was not
involved in the project at that time but am committed to complete all aspects of this one. I

indicated that in my professional opinion, hydrology on the original mitigation site appears to
be marginal and that the resultant mitigation might not be very good. Nevertheless, I stated
that if we needed to construct that mitigation ofsite to put this issue behind us, that we could
have it completed before the end of 1995. It is my recollection that both you and Mr.
Alsmeyer of the Corps agreed that it would be better to construct it at our offsite mitigation
area in conjunction with this latest permit request.
We believe that the alternative proposed by you is neither practicable nor
economically feasible. We will send you the CPA economic analysis as soon as it is
completed. We are continueing to refine our mitigation plan based upon our proposed
alternative which has been conditionally approved by the Corps. As we agreed to on
November 2, 1995, we will provide two-for-one mitigation for the area impacted by this
permit authorization plus the 0.8 acres required to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the
previous authorization. The total area of wetland to be constructed from nonwetland at the
mitigation site is 7.20 acres. This area will be protected either by the transfer of fee simple
title to a public entity or by recorded conservation easements. Any enhancement features that
are developed beyond this 7.20 acres will be based entirely on negotiations between ourselves
and the Corps of Engineers.
Sincerely yours,
?eP
Robert J. Pie cc, Ph.D.
President
cc:
D. Smith, Raleigh DEM Regional Office
E. Alsmeyer, USACE
R. Gorham, Jr.
M. Stocks

Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
USA
INC
December 22, 1995
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Pierce, Ph.D.
President
cc:
D. Smith, Raleigh DEM Regional Office
E. Alsmcyer, USACE
R. Gorham, Jr.
M. Stocks
J. Lanier
Mr. John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
kECzlVED
DEC 2.81995
FtVVIR`? , jgC SClevc,
As indicated in my letter of December 18, 1995, enclosed find an economic analysis
for the proposed Village Green development in Rocky Mount, North Carolina prepared by
Mr. J. Kelly Lanier, a Certified Public Accountant and partner in the firm of Harper, Wiggins
and Company. If your economist has any questions concerning this analysis, they should be
addressed directly to Mr. Lanier. Mr. Lanier's telephone number is [phone].
I hope that this information along with that previously submitted will demonstrate that
the alternative that we have proposed is the least damaging practicable alternative for this
project. I look forward to receiving your decision on this project.

HARPER, WIGGINS & Co.
Geoffrey E. Wiggins
Jeffrey S. Romeo
Angela B. Goodwin
Maurice S. Hamilton
J. Kelly Lanier
Certified Public Accountants
December 20, 1995
To: Mr. Robert J. Pierce
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
Mr. J. Michael Stocks
Appian Consulting Engineers
From: J. Kelly Lanier
Harper, Wiggins & Co.
Re: Economic Analysis of Village Green Site
I have been asked to review documentation relative to the proposed.
development of the Village Green commercial site and prepare an
economic analysis of the development. I understand that the-
purpose of this analysis is to determine the economic 'feasibility
of several alternatives and that this analysis will be used for the
purpose of wetlands impact documentation.
I should begin with a discussion on why a rate of return analysis
is important in any business feasibilty decision. From an
investor's viewpoint, the two primary issues in any investment are
RISK and RETURN. An investor should put his/her money into a
vehicle which will generate the highest return for the amount of
risk the investor is willing to assume. As an example, an investor.
who is willing to assume no risk can invest in an insured bank CD,
and earn a solid 3o after-tax rate of return. On the other hand,.'
a venture capitalist will demand returns in the 30o and higher`
range because he is assuming extraordinary risk. I think most
people would agree that most real estate investments would fall
somewhere in between. While I am not in a position to' quote what
is a reasonable rate of return, I feel it is not unreasonable to.
expect a real estate developer to try to obtain returns from 1501 to
25o for common types of real estate ventures.
With this in mind, I have prepared three scenarios for the proposed
Village Green commercial site based on the information contained in
the "Minimization and Practicability Analysis for Village Green
Property, Rocky Mount, NC" prepared by you. The three scenarios I
have prepared are as follows:
Scenario ##1 - Least Damaging Practicable Alternative (Figure #5)
(Figure references are those included in the document noted above,
This scenario includes filling 26 acres and selling the Wal-
Mart, Circuit City and three outparcel sites.
8210 Creedmoor Road, Suite 203, Raleigh, North Carolina 27613 • [phone] • FAX: [phone]

Village Green Economic Analysis
Page 2
Scenario #2 - DEM Proposal (No Outparcels)
This scenario includes filling only 19 acres and selling the
Wal-Mart and Circuit City sites, only.
Scenario #3 - Sale With Only Two Outparcels (Figure 44)
This scenario includes filling 26 acres and selling the Wal-
Mart and Circuit sites as in Scenario #1, but only two
outparcels are sold. The relevance of this scenario is to
show the importance of the outparcel sites to the overall rate
of return.
I have enhanced the calculations provided in the document noted
above to include three important items:
o Developer Fee - Any real estate development incurs certain costs
relative to the management of the development process. This fee is
typically structured as a percentage of gross revenues (501 - 100).
This fee is to cover all of the labor and costs that go into
putting a deal together and managing the process. An investor must
expect to pay for this service.
o Income Taxes - A real cost of any business is income tax. I
have computed taxes on all transactions at a rate of 33o assuming,
capital gains rate of 280 and the applicable state taxes.
A Growth Rate - Because the sale of outparcels would not take
place until later, I have assumed that the current etimated sale
prices of the outparcels would increase by 51 per year.
Summary of Scenarios
The attached scenarios reveal the following rates of return:
Scenario 41 18.950
Scenario #2 N/A (Computed to negative percentage.)
Scenario #3 5.830
Based on the attached scenarios and calculations the only
practicable alternative is Scenario #1 which includes the sale of
the Wal-Mart, Circuit City and three outparcel sites. A general
review of the calculations will clearly show that the outparcel
sites are necessary to obtain a reasonable rate of return. The
third scenario compared to the first scenario shows that the sale
of the third outparcel adds $245,054 of cash flow to the deal which
is crucial to the overall return. The DEM proposal yields a
negative return when the developer fee is added to the formula.
Even without this fee, a net return of $78,000 on a nearly
$2,000,000 investment is not one which is likely to attract any
investor.

Village Green Economic Analysis
Page 3
I hope this analysis provides the structure for analyzing the
development in a more business-like format. Reducing complicated
projections and assumptions to a single rate of return number is
important to provide a basis for investment comparisons.
Obviously, all assumptions and values impact the result of the
analysis. My analysis is not intended to be a financial forecast
or projection to be used for any purpose other than those mentioned
earlier. I have not audited or reviewed any of the information
used as a basis for my computations.
If you have any questions are need any additional information,
please feel free to contact me at [phone].
61r Ke y anier
tn

-0 1
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #1 Least Damaging Practicable Alternative (Figure #5)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale 1,520,000 1,520,000
Circuit City 542,000 542,000
Outparcel #3 (300K) 315,000 315,000
Outparcel #2 (350K) 385,000 385,000
Outparcel #1 (350K)
-----------------
-------------
------------------
--------- 385,000 385,000

0
0
2,062,000 ----
315,000 --------------
770,000 ---------------
3,147,000
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes 102,000 102,000
Land Improvements 401,000 1,903,000 2,304,000
Mitigation 100,000 100,000
Developer Fee 0 0 103,100 15,750 38,500 157,350
Income Taxes
-----------------
-------------- (61,349)
---------------
- 61,905 159,049 159,606

102,000
401,000 -
-
2,044,751 -------------
77,655 --------------
197,549 ---------------
2,822,956
Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 17,249 237,345 572,451 324,044
Rate of Return 18.95% Saleable acres 25.81
Tax Basis per Acre 97,094
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes -, An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #2 DEM Proposal (No Outparcels)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale 1,520,000
Circuit City 542,000
Outparcel #3 (300K)
Outparcel #2 (350K)
Outparcel #1 (350K)
--------------------------------- ---------
0 0 2,062,000 0
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes 102,000
Land Improvements 401,000 1,464,000
Mitigation 25,000
Developer Fee 0 0 103,100
Income Taxes
-----------------
------- (10,923)

102,000 -------
401,000 -----------------------------
1,581,177 0

Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 480,823 0
Rate of Return -3.69% Saleable acres
Tax Basis per Acre
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
Total
1,520,000
542,000
0
0
0
------------------
0 2,062,000
102,000
1,865,000
25,000
103,100
(10,923
0 2,084,177
0 (22,177)
22.09
90,177
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes - An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #3
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale
Circuit City
Outparcel #3 (300K)
Outparcel #2 (350K)
Outparcel #1 (350K)
Sale With Only Two Outparcels (Figure 4)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
1,520,000 1,520,000
542,000 542,000
315,000 315,000
385,000 385,000
0
----------------------------------------------
0 0 2,062,000 315,000
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes
Land Improvements
Mitigation
Developer Fee
Income Taxes
Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000)
Rate of Return 5.83%
102,000
401,000 1,903,000
100,000
0 0 103,100 15,750
(104,402) 59,664
------------------------------------------------------------
102,000 401,000 2,001,698 75,414
Saleable acres 24.33
Tax Basis per Acre 103,000
385,000 2,762,000
102,000
2,304,000
100,000
19,250 138,100
83,648 38,910
102,898 2,683,010
60,302 239,586 282,102 78,990
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes - An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.

0
,`mss
1) 1,u..i va, VA") IM
z
.2A-
-
-, - 4-J,

CLIX
n? csu ?, ?A,C s SCE 0.32_` Cad QE-1

U '
?,2- C.f`QCQ?1 Y? Ov t ) ) t
I -- ? 1
V-JkA-Jo
V??? C?_11_-
--- `J-- - -

? 0
VFW%
*?'`
OEI-ilNR,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
From:
SUBJECT:
January 31, 1990"
John Dorr_ey
Glenn Sappie, DEM Economist
Eva_uation of Economic Analysis of Village Green Site
I have reviewed the economic analysis provided on the Village Green
Site and offer zhe following opinions:
1) The rate of return ca=culaticns were done correctly, given the
cashflows that were presented to which I do have certain
reservations.
2) The cashflows from the DEM scenario appear to rule out tzis
a-ternative from an economic perspective. This ccnclusio--i is
related to the investor's decision, and c--aims that estimated
revenues are too low ;negative) to pursue this project, without
the outparcels.
3) I questioned the income taxes calcula:?ions, however after
d_scusbing Lhe assumpLioris used for allocaLion of Lhe basis ariong
the properties, cased on expected sales value, and I am satisfied
LhaL Lhe income Luxes figures are reasonable. I would ncL
recommend including the business loss as a means to reduce costs
in 199E. These losses could only exis.. within Lhe scope of an
investor with other gains elsewhere so that they could taste
advanLage of Lhis Lax reducL.ion can Luxuble revenue. Taki_ig Lhe
loss in the following year only reduced the rate of return to
18.3% from 19% i_r Scenario 41, whi;:h seems relatively
insignificant to Their conclusion.
4) I agree that, without the 2 r_.r 3 outpa=ce=s, scenario 112 does not
appear tc be a practicable alternative. What is not clear is the
reason why this project doesn't generate sufficient revenues
without those outparcels. In illy option, e=ther the land
improvement cost is too hich, or else the sales revenue estimate
is too lcw. There ought be a better return from developing a Wal-
Mart Supercent.er and Circuit City site than is reported. I found
a lack of evidence supporting the claim that the $80,000 per acre
f=gure is following the "downward trend" based on similar ---cent
developments. TZat portion cf the economic analysis will need to
he substantiated, because 1:sing $125,000 per acre woul i provide.
adequate returns and make the DEM alternative practicable.
5) Lastly, I make no clam to be an expert in the area of -property
appraisal and valuation, hi:t T concl-.jde that tie. economic
analysis presented la-'led to convince me; beyond doubt, that the
DEM proposal can not be accomplished and _t seems unlikely such a
development should be so unprofitable.
IDEHNFZ'
MEMORiANCUM
TO:
From:
SUBJECT:
January 31, 1996
John Dorr_ey
Glenn Sappie, DEM Economist
Eva_uation of Economic Analysis of Village Green Site
I have reviewed the economic analysis provided on the Village Green
Site and offer she following opinions:
1) The rate of return ca-culaticns were done correctly, given the
cashflows that were presented to which I do have certain
reservations.
2) The cashflows from the DEM scenario appear to rule out tzis
alternative from an economic perspective. This ccnclusion is
related to the investor's decision, and c--aims that estimated
revenues are too low ;negative) to pursue this project, without
the outparcels.
3) I questicned the income taxes calcula:?ions, however after
d_scuss.iny Lhe assumpLi.ons used for dllocaLiou of Lhe busis ai:iong
the properties, cased on expected sales value, and I a_n satisfied
LhaL Ll_e income Laxes. figures are reasonable. I would not
recommend including the business loss as a means to reduce costs
in 199E. Tli(;?,se losses could dilly exis_ wiLhin Lhe scope of an
investor with otze= gains elsewhere so that they could take
advauLage of Lhis Lax reducLion oil Laxable revenue. Taki_iy Lhe
loss in the following year only reduced the rate of return to
18.3.1 frcm 19% 1_1 Scenario #1, whi::h seems relatively
insignificant to :heir conclusion.
4) I agree that, without the 2 cr 3 outpa=ce=s, scenario 42 does not
appear tc be a practicable alternative. What is not clear is the
reason why this project doesn't generate sufficient revenues
without those outparcels. In my option, ether the land
improvement cost is too hich, or else the sales revenue estimate
is too lcw. There ought be a better return from developing a Wal-
Mart Supercent.er and Circuit City site than is reported. I found
a lack of evidence supporting-the claim that the $80,000 per acre
f=gu re is fol1nwing the "downward trend" based on similar --cent
developments. Tzat portion cf the economic analysis will need to
he suhst.ant.iat.ad, because using $125,100 per acre woul:3 provide
adequate returns and make the DEM alternative practicable.
5) Lastly, I make no clam to be an expert in the area of property
appraisal and valuation, bi: t T con^1.id(that tl-P Prnno-ni c
analysis presented =a-'led to convince me: beyor_c. doubt, that the
DEM propcsal can not be accomplished and _t seems unlikely such a
development should be so unprofitable.

FAX COVER SHEET
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:99:44 AM
To: John Dorney
Fax #: 39959
From:
Fax: 6 pages and a cover page.
4
Note:
was not sure if you saw this yet,
please call me,,after iunc today
(if you are ny lyour office) ar SAP
in
otherwise, Glenn 715-3822

?.? Ju-
VV\ ( ?? ?a`r?'ad 2 r1QSS .

02-13-1996 10:32AM FROM
TO
7153822 P.01
HARPER, WIGGINS ez COMPANY, L.L.P.
1
1
1/ ?? •
Date
Time
/6z;da IL Caoawin
' !.'s,Ii?tiltaa
I! Kr3ty [.?:rr
fiACSEVH.E COVER STET .
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
Name:
:CcrrPJPuNk AccounAwZ
Firm:
Facshnile
Total # of Pages (Including Thi3 Cover Sheet)
F--
1 Name:
Firm: HARPER, WIGGINS & COMPANY, L.L.P.
CERTI + D PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
€3210 CREEDMOOR ROAD, SUITE 203
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 276X3-1388
FAX #: [phone]
! BUSINESS #: [phone]
i
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
t .
4
Please 6U US at (919) 870-SISI ifyou had any prubkw rcceirlog fax transmittal.
8210 Crrcd=ar Rood, 54r203, Rakigh, Na=z C=Uaa 27613 • (919) 87045151 • FAX., [phone]
I

02-13-1996 10:33AM FROM TO 7153922 P.02
• i
dt)
101 Rum &=H Cove .
Rasi?rtfat - comnlerial Rocky Mourn NoM Corolina 27801
FEtm & tend 07'ica [phone]. '
February 7. 1998 Fax: [phone]
s
1 i
i
Mr. J1 Michael Stocks !
Appian Consulting Engineers, PA
P. 0. box 7966
Ro4 Mount, NC 27804
,
Dear ivir. Stocks:
At your request, I have made an analysis of sales that have taken place
over the past recent years along Wesleyan Boulevard.
A brief histoy of the development along Wesleyan Boulevard shows that
Gold6 East Crossing Mali .was constructed in or around 1985. This mail was
the Most extensive development to take place along Wesleyan Boulevard since ;
the development of Tarrytown Mail In the late sixties. Since the development of '
"Golden East", Wal Mart purchased land In 1987 and built a store and K Matt
was Built around 1990. Since this Initial development by "Golden East", there 1
also teas been several sales of out parcels developed as Wendy's, Red Lobster,
Waftib House, Ragazzi's, Applebee's and Burger King.
An analysis of the Wal Mart site and the K Mart site sales are as follows:
(1) On April 15, 1987, Southwest Associates of Rocky Mount'purchased
20.129 acres for an indicated purchase price of $2,580,000 or $128,187/Acre.
This 'Oct was transferred by four deeds of the same date. This tract fronted ;
910.0,,1 foot on the East lido of Wesleyan Boulevard and approximately 1200
foot oin the west side of Hunter Hill Road. '
1 On August 24, 1987, Southeast Associates of: Rocky Mount sold 9.026
Acres to Wal Mart Properties for $1,120,000 or $124,086/Acre. This tract !
fronted 235.01 feet on the East side of Wesleyan Boulevard and approximately
80 fe , t on Hunter Hill Road. Access to this site was over a common area I
as and did not utilize the site's road frontage for-access. This site was
ultimAtely developed as a Wal Mart store. The frontage on Wesleyan Boulevard
couldibe sold for restaurant use, etc.
On October 29, 1987, Southeast Associates of Rocky Mount sold to
Bot?b? L. Murray a 2.048 Acre tract fronting on Wesleyan Boulevard and a 1.013
02-13-1996 10:33AM FROM TO 7153822 P.03
acre >iract on Hunter Hill Road for $700,000. The purchaser owns a car
dealership that adjoins both tracts. In 1993, Bobby Murray sold a portion of the
2.04t' acre tract fronting on Wesleyan Boulevard to Wendy's International. The
tract contains 0.964 acres and sold for $310,000.
= The remaining 8.0399 acres retained by Southeast Associates, after the
above referenced transfers, has a basis of $760,000 or,$94,529/Acre. •A portion
of thq remainding land island leased to Blockbuster and a strip center adjacent
to WAI Mart has been constructed with a variety of tenants.
(2) On October 18, 1989, Rocky Mount Town Center Associates
pu sad 49.76 acres for an indicated sale3 price of $5,500,000 or
$110 30/Acrd. This tract was transferred in one deed. The tract fronts 816.9
foot 0 tho west side of Wosloyan Boulevard, 1268.71 feet on the north side and
1051.111 foot on the south side of Sutters Crook Boulevard, and 1308.10 feet on
the elast side and 1211.10 feet on tho west lido of Joffrios Road.
( On May 23, 1991, Rocky Mount Town Center sold 1.72 acres to General
Mills or $496,500 or $288,663/Acre. This tract is in the northwest comer of
Sutte Creek Boulevard and Wesleyan Boulevard. This is now the site of the
Red obster Restaurant.
1 On September 23, 1991, Rocky Mount Tm%n Center sold 12.32 acres to
C. D.mith o stru ion far $1,000,000 r $81.16 Acre. This site was
developed a?? -Mart.
On June 10, 1994, Rocky Mount Town 9enter. sold 8.80 Acres to Dayton
?iud:?bCorporation for $73,5001or $83,523/Acre. This site was developed as a
Targ?f?tore. ---
On August 23, 1994, Rocky Mount Tovai Center sold 2.14 Acres to
Noell Enterprises, Inc. for $465,000 or $217,290/Acre. This bite was
ped as Texas Steak House.
I On April 7,1995, Rocky Mount Town Center sold 1.54 Acres to Wells
Rea on for $333,000 or $216,234/Acre. This site was developed as a Burger
King. i
Jif The RocKy Mount Town Center group still retains approximately 23.24
acre which 10.77 acres front on the west side of Jeffries Road and
appro 'mately 12.47 acres is located In the northeast quadrant of 5utters Creek
Soule and and Jeffries Road and is adjacent to K Mart. The basis In this land is
approximately $2,470,500 or $106,303/Acre.
1
i
2
02-13-1996 10:34AM FROM
TO 715M22 P.04
An analysis was also made of small parcel sales along Wesleyan
Boulevard which were not out parcels of the above two tracts. These sales are
as foilows:
i Salo a1: CFN Goldon East sold to R & M Properties a 1.02 Acre site on
July 18, 1989 for $355,000 or $348,039/Acre. This sale was develo'p' d as an
i Sale /#2: Daughtridge Enterprises sold to Krispy Kr©me Doughnut
Corporation a.80 Acre site on October 5, 1993, for $365,000 or $455,250/Acre.
This site was developed as a Krispy Kreme Doughnut outlet.
Sale /K3: CFN Golden sold to Kancor Investments a.92 Acre, site on May
10,* 1994 for $300,000 or $326,087/Acre. This site has been developed as a
New York Carpet Outlet.
. . Sale 404: William S. Rowe sold to Waffle House, Inc. a .64 acre tract on
Febrgary 16, 1995 for $225,000 or $351,563/Acre. This site has been
deve$ped as a Waffle House Resturant.
Sale f#5: Lonnie A Howell, Jr. sold to Ragazzi's, inc. a 1.15 acre tract on
April 11, 1995 for $350,000 or $304,348/Acre. This site has been developed as
a Raiazzi's Restaurant
.i
The purpose of the analysis of the above sales was to enable me in giving
an opinion of value on 26 acres of land located in the southwest quadrant of US
Hwy. G4 and Wesleyan Boulevard. My opinion of value in subject to proper fill
being ladded to the above sight to bring up to the 100 years flood elevation. The
sight Ian entitled "Wetland Impact Map for Village Green, Rocky Mount, North
Carolina" dated September 28, 1995, with final revision dated November 3,
19915,iappears to develope the highest and best use of the site, after considering
the acreage tracts that are located along Wesleyan Boulevard.
if The best small parcel sales that have taken place Is the Waffle House
sale %Wch sold for $351,563 per acre. This site is at a stop light and is located
to thel north of US Hwy. 64. The next sale in proximity is the Raq=i's sale
which sold for $304,348 per acre. This sale has direct access to Wesleyan
Boull-ard. Based on these two sales and support from tho remaining sales the
three , utparcols should have a value of $300,000 per acre.
You also asked me to look at tho 3.1 acres optioned to Circuit City for
$175,(600 per acre. This tract is located tho tho w©st of Outparcel 41, as shown
on ", referred map. and has no frontage on Wesleyan Boulevard and access i3
by a Orvice road to the remaining acreage. It appears this value per acrd Is
reaso0able.
I
3
I
i
02-13-1996 10:35AM FROM
TO
7153822 P.05
i
I?I The remaining 19.18 acres lie to the west of the outparcel, has no
fro Age on Wesleyan Boulevard and access is by service road. The best
indication of value for the remaining acres is the Rocky Mount Town Center sale
which took place on October 18, 1959 for $110,530 per acre and the Target
Store sale which took place on June 10, 1994 for $83,523 per acre.
The first sale cited had extensive road frontage on three roads and
inclined outparcels of which several have been sold. This sate would be
adju ad for frontage estimated at a minus 30% total for an indication of value of
$77, 71 per acre for the subject. The second sale had approximately 370 feet of
fro ntage on Suttors Crook Boulevard, 200 feet on Jeffries Road and 450 feet on
1104Y!Drive. This sale would bo adjusted for frontage estimated at a minus 10%
for Sri indication of value of $75,171 per acre.
These two sales, after adjusted for differences indicate a value range J
fror' $75,000 to $77,000 per acre. It would appear that $75,600 per acre is J
rea?nab[e_
These values per acre appear to be reasonable and can be supported by
sales found, analyzed and listed above.
i
Applied to Subject:
Outparcel #1 1.15 Acre at $300,0000/Acre $ 345,000
Outparcel /#2 1.42 Acre at $300,000/Acre $ 426,000
Outparcel f#3 1.15 Acre at $300,000/Acre $ 345,000
Circuit City 3.1 Acre @ $175,000/Acre $ 542,500
Remaining 19.18 Acres @ $75,000/Acre $1,438,500
$3,097,000
02
This premise is based on the assumption that there are no road
ie out parcels that can be sold and the site will contain 19 acres of filled,
land. The site would have frontage on Wesleyan Boulevard. The same
es mentioned In Premise #1, the Rocky Mount Town denier sale and the
Store sale are still the best Indicators. The frontage adjustment for the
Mount Town Center sale would be reduced to a minus 20% for an
sd value of $88,424 per acre and the Target sale would have no
lent for an indicated value of $$3,523/Acre.
These values also appear to be reasonable and well supported, It would
'that $85,000 per acre is reasonable.
;. I
4
02-13-1996 10:35AM FROM TO 7153822 P.06
i '
' I
1
i I
i ?
I
! Applied to Subject:
i
With no outparcels: 19 Acres @ M,000/Ac :$1,615,0Q0
This valuation cannot be fully understood without a'review of my file which
hab xtcnsivs information on each sale Bite. It is also subject to the proper fill
bo'P brought to bite, all utilities extended to each site.
i if you have any quostions regarding this valuation, please don't he5tiate
to tot.mo know.
i
i
t
I
5
Sinc©roly,
Frank R. Gupton
State Certified General
Appraiser A-525

i
I
? S
:I
.I
i
!
TOTAL P.06
W-01-1996 09:47P.M FROM TO 7339959 P.01
HARPER, WIGGINS & COMPANY, L.L.P. eatlf,?d PNt•1k Aeeawnrants
i 3 1, 1$? jeffrty S. Romeo
Date IL Goodwin
Mmitice I I Lim[Itan
J. Kay, L raa
i Time
FACSEVHLE COVE R SHEET
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
Name: S D
T
Facsimile it!
Total 0 of Pages (hacluding This Cover Sheet)
FROM:
Name: - L? ?11v
Firm: HARPER, WIGGINS & COMPANY, L.E.P.
CERTIk'IED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
8210 CREEDMOOR ROAD, SMITE 203
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27613-1388
FAX #: [phone]
BUSINESS #: [phone]
s1'pCIA,L 1NSTRUC`nO.NS: -16rA A-0
?•
A
:FT.
Please caI Ui at [phone] ifyoa had any problem receiving fax tranamittaL'
8710 Criediwor Road, Sul.- 103, RakiA Nork'Y Carolina 37618 • [phone] • FAX: [phone]
I
_ a .
03-01-1996 09:48AM FROM TO 7339959 P.02
r ,
i
copra, ?. wig
VIA #APIMILE Y`m"r3'R`? C0
Antai B. Goodin
Marco x.996 J icy Lue" tW
Mr. Glhnn Stipple
DBM Economist
Dear :Glenn:
per .6?r conversation from yesterday, I have' revised' the "DEM
Proposal" scenario to include the $85, 000 per acre land value from
the rebentlj prepared appraisal. A summary of the chap_qes are as
follow.
t •
;1i. ) The total Wal-Mart sale price changed from .$1,.520, 000 to
$1"6iSj; 000 _ : (An -increase in cash flow of $95,000.)
2.) The developer fee was increased $4,750 which- is•the 51
fee multiplied by the $95,000 increase.
3j. ) The tax effect decreased cash flow',by *29',783 which its
the assumed ••tax.rate of 33k multiplied by the'increased cash flow
of $$0250.
40 The end result is a computed rate of return of 6.261.
Ac: poi ted out in my original memo, "I feel it is not unreaconable
to expect a real estate developer to try to obtain returns from 15.?
to 25*11 for common types of real estate ventures." I believe the
level of risk and investment required for the Village :Green venture
will require a substantially higher rate of return than the'6.26?r
rate;ok return from the revised DEM Proposal scenario.
f .
In*add'tion; it should be pointed out that the cost structure for
thisstenari.o includes filling 19 acres. The Wal-Mart and Circuit
City: sites comprise over 22 acres. At a fill cost 'of nearly
$75,0 per acre, even one additional acre of fill would put the
prof ec, into a negative cash flow and rate of return ai.:tuation.
;
Glenii,1 I hope this answers any lingering questions you:may have.
I appreciate your help in this matter; if you should need anything
else; please give me a call.
V. ry kvier
eof
cc. ?Jphn Dorney, Mike Stocks
f 1
i
t 110 CrccAwop Rc=4 SaU*203, RakiZk Nwt. Cam::a 27613 [phone] • FAX: (919) W-0399
Ii[ARPPR, WIGGINS Lit COMPANY, L.L.P.
Califird PuWe AceowMwb

03-01-1996 09:48AM FROM
I
I
i
i
I
Scenarloji2
s;
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart ?ale
Circuit City!
Outparcel 83;(30010
Outparcel #2 i(350K)
Outparcel 911(3501)
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Lang 8, Taxes
Land Imprav8ments
Mitigation
Developer Fdo
Income Tazos
TO
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
DEM Proposal (No Outparcels)
1994 1995 Dfl6 1997
7339959 P.03
REVISEDIIIII
1998 Totat
1,615,000 1,615,000•'.
542,000 542,00(Y:
0.
0.
0.
0 0 21157,000 0 0 2,157,000
1021000 102,000'
401,000 1,464,000 1,865,00010
25,000 25,000
0 0 107,850 107,850
18,860 181860'
102,000 401,000 1,615,710 0 0 2,118,710
iNet Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 541,291 0 0 38,291.
s •
Rate of Rdtum 6.26Saleable acres 22.09
Tax Basis per Acre 95,059
Major Assur> ptions For All Scenarios: '
01 Values - All values were derived from document tilted "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Villago Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
`
#2 Costa - i All costs relative to land purchase and improvoment3 were obtained from the
document noted above.
23 Dovelopoi Foo A developer fee of 5Yo of gross 541c3 was added to the cost structure Wnco this Is
a customary operating charge.
:14 Incorno Ti d;Z1- An income tax rato of 33% wa3 =urned on all tranoactiono. Nota thatthi3 amount
i can bo a bonofrt or an oxponoo.
95 Growth Rttoi- • A growth rate of 5% VAII bo used for astimaUng tho values of the throo outparcols.
l .
SEE THE ATTACHED 110.10 REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES I. IPORTANT To THE
ANALYSIS C F THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
TOTAL P.03
MEMORA1DUM
^0: John Dorney,
From: Glenn Sappie, DEM Economist
SUBJEC^: Evaluation of Economic Analysis of Village Green Site
have rev_ewed the econom_e ana-ys-s prov_ded on the V_-=age
Green S_te and have made the fo--ow_ng _n_t_a- observat_ons:
The rate o= return calculations were done correctly, given
the cash-flows that were presented.
The returns from the DEM scenario appear to rule out this
alternative from an economic perspective, relative to the
invesLor's decision, and LhaL Lhe reLurns are Loo low
(negativei to pursue this project, without the outparcels.
3; I had questions about the income taxes calculations and,
after discussing the assumptions used for allocation o- the
basis among the properties, based on the sales value, 1 am
satisfied that the income taxes -figures are reasonable. With
the exception that by including the business loss to reduce
costs in 1996, these losses could only exist within the
scope o= an investor with other gains elsewhere in order to
take advantage this tax reduction on pro-fits. Taking the
loss in Lhe following year reduced Lhe rate of reLurii Lo
18.3% from 19% in Scenario 1, which seems insignificant to
the conclusion.
3; I am inclined to agree that without the outparcels this
investment may on longer look attractive to the developer.
The decision to switch to a Super tidal-mart that crowded the
original project site, thereby requiring the -fill off
additional wetlands, could be the business error that causes
this proposal to fail to provide the returns needed to make
this an attractive investment. What is not clear is the
reason why this project doesn't generate a sufficient return
without the outparcels.. Are the land improvement costing
too much? or are the sales estimate is low? 't'here ought be a
better return -for developing a tidal-Mart and Circuit City
than reported or else that portion off the whole project may
need to be reevaluated.
4; Incremental, the last $139,000 invested in the 3 outparcels
will zeLuin $1,085,000 wiLhia ? years, and provide a good
return. However, it seems unlikely that the initial sites
should be so unpro-itablo.
5; The cash-flow analysis did not include the cost of debt
service on the investment which may also further point
toward the lack of returns -from these development sites.
FAX COVER SHEET
Tuesday, January 16, 1996 11:23:58 AM
To: John Dorney
Fax #: 39959
From:
Fax: 1 page and a cover page.
mow, w _ i

NULU.
John, this is preliminary cause I may need
to see more or the proposal to find out why
the Wal-Mart & Circuit City are so
un-profitable alone. Call me 715-3822,
Glenn
IMPORTANT
To
Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
Phone 7//
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Me
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

IMPORTANT
To- 7.h") 1)
Date A- A/Z Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
of
PhoneII
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED L -, 'PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Messag
-y" - -
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources

USA
INC
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Poolesville, Maryland 20837-0099
[phone]
December 22, 1995
Mr. John R. Dorncy
Water Quality Certification Program
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorncy:
'' EcaQED
E DEC 2.d l??S
NVrRp?,''?NrAC Sc/ENCEs
As indicated in my letter of December 18, 1.995, enclosed find an economic analysis
for the proposed Village Green development in Rocky Mount, North Carolina prepared by
Mr. J. Kelly Lanier, a Certified Public Accountant and partner in the firm of Harper, Wiggins
and Company. If your economist has any questions concerning this analysis, they should be
addressed directly to Mr. Lanier. Mr. Lanier's telephone number is [phone].
I hope that this information along with that previously submitted will demonstrate that
the alternative that we have proposed is the least damaging practicable alternative for this
project. I look forward to receiving your decision on this project.
Sincerely yours,
?C
Robert J. Pierce, Ph.D.
President
cc:
D. Smith, Raleigh DEM Regional Office
E. Aismcyer, USACE
R. Gorham, Jr.
M. Stocks
J. Lanier
HARPER, WIGGINS & Co. Certified Public Accountants
Geoffrey E. Wiggins
Jeffrey S. Romeo
Angela B. Goodwin
Maurice S. Hamilton
J. Kelly Lanier
December 20, 1995
To: Mr. Robert J. Pierce
Wetland Science Applications, Inc.
Mr. J. Michael Stocks
Appian Consulting Engineers
From: J. Kelly Lanier
Harper, Wiggins & Co.
Re: Economic Analysis of Village Green Site
I have been asked to review documentation relative to the proposed
development of the Village Green commercial site and prepare an
economic analysis of the development. I understand that the
purpose of this analysis is to determine the economic feasibility
of several alternatives and that this analysis will be used for the
purpose of wetlands impact documentation.
I should begin with a discussion on why a rate of return analysis
is important in any business feasibilty decision. From an
investor's vie=wpoint, the two primary issues in any investment are
RISK and RETURN. An investor should put his/her money into a
vehicle which will generate the highest return for the amount of
risk the investor is willing to assume. As an example, an investor
who is willing to assume no risk can invest in an insured bank CD
and earn a solid 3o after-tax rate of return. On the other hand,
a venture capitalist will demand returns in the 30o and higher
range because he is assuming extraordinary risk. I think most
people would agree that most real estate investments would fall
somewhere in between. While I am not in a position to quote what
is a reasonable rate of return, I feel it is not unreasonable to
expect a real estate developer to try to obtain returns from 150-. to
2501 for common types of real estate ventures.
With this in mind, I have prepared three scenarios for the proposed
Village Green commercial site based on the information contained in
the "Minimization and Practicability Analysis for Village Green
Property, Rocky Mount, NC" prepared by you. The three scenarios I
have prepared are as follows:
Scenario #1 - Least Damaging Practicable Alternative (Figure #5)
[Figure references are those included in the document noted above.]
This scenario includes filling 26 acres and selling the Wal-
Mart, Circuit City and three outparcel sites.
8210 Creedmoor Road, Suite 203, Raleigh, North Carolina 27613 • [phone] • FAX: [phone]
Village Green Economic Analysis
Page 2
Scenario #2 - DEM Proposal (No Outparcels)
This scenario includes filling only 19 acres and selling the
Wal-Mart and Circuit City sites, only.
Scenario #3 - Sale With Only Two Outparcels (Figure #4)
This scenario includes filling 2G acres and selling the Wal-
Mart and Circuit sites as in Scenario #1, but only two
outparcels are sold. The relevance of this scenario is to
show the importance of the outparcel sites to the overall rate
of return.
I have enhanced the calculations provided in the document noted
above to include three important items:
o Developer Fee - Any real estate development incurs certain costs
relative to the management of the development process. This fee is
typically structured as a percentage of gross revenues (56 - 106).
This fee is to cover all of the labor and costs that go into
putting a deal together and managing the process. An investor must
expect to pay for this service.
® Income Taxes - A real cost of any business is income tax. I
have computed taxes on all transactions at a rate of 336 assuming
capital gains rate of 286 and the applicable state tares.
a Growth Rate - Because the sale of outparcels would not take
place until later, I have assumed that the current etimated sale
prices of the outparcels would increase by 56 per year.
Summary of Scenarios
The attached scenarios reveal the following rates of return:
Scenario 41 18.956
Scenario 42 N/A (Computed to negative percentage.)
Scenario #3 5.836
Based on the attached scenarios and calculations the only
practicable alternative is Scenario #1 which includes the sale of
the Wal-Mart, Circuit City and three outparcel sites. A general
review of the calculations will clearly show that the outparcel
sites are necessary to obtain a reasonable rate of return. The
third scenario compared to the first scenario shows that the sale
of the third outparcel adds $245,054 of cash flow to the deal which
is crucial to the overall return. The DEM proposal yields a
negative return when the developer fee is added to the formula.
Even without this fee, a net return of $78,000 on a nearly
$2,000,000 investment is not one which is likely to attract any
investor.
Village Green Economic Analysis
Page 3
I hope this analysis provides the structure for analyzing the
development in a more business-like format. Reducing complicated
projections and assumptions to a single rate of return number is
important to provide a basis for investment comparisons.
Obviously, all assumptions and values impact the result of the
analysis. My analysis is not intended to be a financial forecast
or projection to be used for any purpose other than those mentioned
earlier. I have not audited or reviewed any of the information
used as a basis for my computations.
If you have any questions are need any additional information,
please feel free to contact me at [phone].
6 J. Ke y anier
rtn

Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #1 Least Damaging Practicable Alternative (Figure #5)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale 1,520,000 1,520,000
Circuit City 542,000 542,000
Outparcel #3 (300K) 315,000 315,000
Outparcel #2 (350K) 385,000 385,000
Outparcel #1 (350K)
-----------------
------------------------------
--------------- 385,000
-------------- 385,000
--------------
0 0 2,062,000 315,000 770,000 3,147,000
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes 102,000 102,000
Land Improvements 401,000 1,903,000 2,304,000
Mitigation 100,000 100,000
Developer Fee 0 0 103,100 15,750 38,500 157,350
Income Taxes (61,349) 61,905 159,049 159,606
102,000 401,000 2,044,751 77,655 197,549 2,822,956
Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 17,249 237,345 572,451 324,044
Rate of Return 18.95% Saleable acres 25.81
Tax Basis per Acre 97,094
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes - An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #2 DEM Proposal (No Outparcels)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale
Circuit City
Outparcel #3 (300K)
Outparcel #2 (350K)
Outparcel #1 (350K)
1,520,000
542,000
0 0 2,062,000
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes 102,000
Land Improvements 401,000 1,464,000
Mitigation 25,000
Developer Fee 0 0 103,100
Income Taxes (10,923)
-------------------------------------------------------
102,000 401,000 1,581,177
Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 480,823
Rate of Return 1 -3.69%1 Saleable acres
Tax Basis per Acre
0
0
0
Total
1,520,000
542,000
0
0
0
0 2,062,000
102,000
1,865,000
25,000
103,100
(10, 923)
------------------
0 2,084,177
0 (22,177)
22.09
90,177
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes - An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
Village Green Site
Economic Analysis
December 15, 1995
Scenario #3 Sale With Only Two Outparcels (Figure 4)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
Source of Funds:
Wal-Mart Sale 1,520,000 1,520,000
Circuit City 542,000 542,000
Outparcel #3 (300K) 315,000 315,000
Outparcel #2 (350K) 385,000 385,000
Outparcel #1 (350K) 0
0 0 2,062,000 315,000 385,000 2,762,000
Use of Funds:
Cost Of Land & Taxes 102,000
Land Improvements 401,000 1,903,000
Mitigation 100,000
Developer Fee 0 0 103,100 15,750
Income Taxes (104,402) 59,664
------------------------------------------------------------
102,000 401,000 2,001,698 75,414
Net Inflows (Outflows) (102,000) (401,000) 60,302 239,586
Rate of Return 5.83% Saleable acres
Tax Basis per Acre
102,000
2,304,000
100,000
19,250 138,100
83,648 38,910
102,898 2,683,010
282,102 78,990
24.33
103,000
Major Assumptions For All Scenarios:
#1 Values - All values were derived from document titled "Minimization and Practicability Analysis
for Village Green Property, Rocky Mount, NC."
#2 Costs - All costs relative to land purchase and improvements were obtained from the
document noted above.
#3 Developer Fee A developer fee of 5% of gross sales was added to the cost structure since this is
a customary operating charge.
#4 Income Taxes - An income tax rate of 33% was assumed on all transactions. Note that this amount
can be a benefit or an expense.
#5 Growth Rate - A growth rate of 5% will be used for estimating the value of the three outparcels.
SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO REGARDING OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES IMPORTANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIOS PROVIDED HEREIN.
c Copal ht 1993 Appian Consulting Englneere, P. A. Thsee drowin haMrt bs~n prsparsd oa inptrumsnte of eerdcs fora tNxltor site er buildin improti+timent ono rNnotna tM Kt o} tfie Engklesr for 1 ~e Engineer hx wee undN his eupsr~don. No reproQuctlon or other use le digweci without his permission.
1 2 BEFORE 3 1 1 ~
YOU DIG CAtl Tql TREE o ~ 1 `
1-800- ~ ~ 1` ~ ~ 1 1 1
632-4949 ________1___^`
NORTH - CAROLINA 1 _ _ ~1 ~ - 1 1
ONE-GAIL ~ - _ - - ~ ' ' - - - - _ _ ~ E~~ CENTER r-- ~ _ ~ ~ ` 1 oa~r~q,~a _ _ _ 1 -
" - _ r 1 11 ~ ° ~
1 1 0 1 1 1
~ l 1 .ter,, ~ns~' 1 1
f lr N~ 1 1 1 1 ~
~i 1 1 1 1 1 ` 111
/ / 1~.,~, 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
5* hwly~-. ~ f.•<.. ~ ~ Fp 1 1 1 1
~ r.~ • w. +.f ~ ' ~ a 1 1 X11 r 1 t
i b ~ ~ ~ ' ~ i Ql?IP 1 1 1 1
.Y~ • ~ / t11 1 1 X11 ~ 1 1,
J~ ` 5 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1~
~ c~ 0 4~ 1i\„ 111 11
1~A, a r' ti 1~ 1 1 1 1 ~
1 t 1\1
1 1 oa ~ 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
1 ~ 1 1 X11 n - 1 1
- _ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~
1 - „1 1 X11 1 1
~ ~ tri ~ 1 1 a m 1 1 1
w 4 0 QUIP w 1 1 1 1 ~
~ v, 4 F ~r i~ 1 1 s 1 1 1 1 1 ~
s= ~ 1
, a ~ ~ t ~ 1 1
~a . 1 1 a, 111 1 ~
3 t 1 1 ' m, b
1 I m*, ~ ~ R. W 1 1 1 `i11
1 I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1
1~ ~ ~ ; 1 a 1 1 1
i _ 1\ 1 q ~ I 1 ~ I 1 1 1111
V ~ ~ \ A ~ ~ 4 ~ 1 I ~1.,~s'+.- lr . 1 1 1 1 d ~ 1 A 1 1
PERMANENT POOL, ,,x stet ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ,
BASIN ~ I 1 ~ \ \ y "1 1 1
I V ~ i . 'r-'. 1 1 1 1 11 111 B
I / J' I I i / V 1 1 I I ~ tf r y M ~ 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1
r / ~ t .at t.: J 1 I ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .^c ~ \ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1
~ ~ i 1 1 1 1 1 1111 z ~ae~. ~ 1 ~ ~ 1, 1 1 1
1 ~ ' t 1 ~ % - p i' , 1 \ ~ 1 \ ~
1 11 ~1 1 y.
1 • t 1
~ / \ / 1 1 ~
„ h ~ I . ~ ~ 1
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ d } ~ 1 11 ` 1
J • ~ ~ / ~ y/ / i 1 1 1 1 ~ r ~ ~ 11 1 1 .
/ ~ 55 ~ \ X11
1 I,G~'EES 1 1 1 Ey,. N~,R4 t 1 1
D , S Q ~ ~ ~0 1 11 1 1 t
1 ' ~ ~ 111 3 1 1 1
1 r 0 C 1 1 1 - 111 1 1
0 111 It
F ~ ti 1 1 1
Y , EX. H 1 1 1 , ,.r+ ~ 1 1
r / ~1 ~ 1 / 1 t~~ 1
~ 11 / ~ 1 1
~ ~ 1 ` 1
~ ~ ~ 1 1
.off N ~ J 1
" ~ ~ ~ ~ I s~+'• sO~r y, ~E ~ 1 ~ ~ EX ~ 1 1
cw , ~ v . A>~ r~ ,J PF Mr S~ ~
~ ~ ~
1~ 1- ° ` 1
- -189 MA~l1A - t,. EX~T'M~ WETLANDS ~ , \ - , l $
~ ,
M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL IMPACT - 3.61 Ac. ` ` ~ ~ ~ 1 (7.78 INCLUDES 4.17) 1
scA~E 1 ~ '
0 too 200 250 300 350 400
i--~`~, ~ SAMPLE PLOTS \ ~ ' - -
3 ' 4
R NO. ~ DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD: ~ ~ ~ ' ~~<~r,
E
V I ,
S
O 4 N x S
JOB NUTA. HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE DESIGN ~.s '"x,
92-014 1" = 100' OCT. 14, 1995 J.M.S.-
WAL-MINI ~ i VERTICAL SCALF DRANK BY CNRD 9
D-0415 - M.G.Jr. - J.M.Q.° . , . p ~

c Copyr t i>i95 Appion Consuitln En nesro, P.A. these drawin haw beM r o 9e P ePorod • b»trvmsnts of al'WCe ® lM1 9tn~ . ,
WI ~ ~ ue?A~r t?i~ No r~pro~ctlon ar otMr ua ~ otlows0 without h on.
BEFORE
YOU DIG CALL TDLL FREE IfJ. N~ W ~1 1 1
1-800- Ilw M ~11N ~ a. ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1
632-4949 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1
NORTH CAROLINA ' _
ONE-CALL ~
CENTER - - - AOC - 1 1 ~a ~ ~ 1 _ , _ "op~,~ _ _ 1
1 1 1 ~ 1 1 11 ~
1 1 1 ~ Q~
1 1 1 ~ ~
w,.'~ f.,~..`"`~._ 1- 111 _ 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED DIVERSKk~I 1 1 1 1
T ~ ~ e 1 11 11 1
1 1 1 1~, 1 1 1 1 ~
1 1 111 1 1
..M. ~P 1 1 1 1 ~ + 1 1
r:=, rq'~ ~ z~. a..,: 1 1 ~3 1 1 11
y~ SUCK ~ u~ 1 1 ~ 1.15 Ac. ~ 1 1
~ , , 1 1 1 1 / 1
i 11 11 i~ 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
I 1 1 111 ~ 1
1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ~
z `3 1 11 11
~ + ,t. , .~.r~ 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 ~
rl 1 X11 f
1 1 1 1 ~ 1
. ~T. MJ N a ltd' s l 1 1 i 11
~r P ~ µ h~. Ki YT~1 C ' 1 1 1 ~Z 1
s.`~~i ar~.r 1.42 Ac. 1 1 1 t
w.~ ~ xs .~tiv. ~ ~ •,r 11 ~ , 1
cJ f.= , ~ i ~ Y .etih°'"~ - v ~.f xi-; 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 i
~ a at"pY... y'Y ~ NATtNtM, FipREgAY r ~ r rE 1 1 1 ~ 1 1
(2 DAY ~ ~ oRAw ~ ~ - , (1,,i1 ..1 _.1..1 1 }1 ~
~ ~ , r ~ ; a k ° ~1 1 1 1 1
' ~ ~lu~" ~ 1 i i
~ I ~1 ~ ' 1 11 1 1 11 ,
~ti' r ~'S' ;PERMANENT POOL 1 i 1 ~
I SWM t , p I BASIN ~ , 1 1 1 11 1 1
! I i 11 ~ 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
~ ~ 1 i i :r t ~ I ! 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
1 1 Y-..la, { 1i I I . ~ ._.S . 1 1 1 11 1 ~
' 1 1 1 1 "t 1 1
~1 i~ 1 1 1
1.15 Ac. ~ 1 11 i 1
1
' l 1 11
~
r ~ 1
/ / •ry' 111 1 X 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 1 1
u $ 1... ~ 111 1 1
O 4~• " 1 1 1 1 1
+r.' ; ~ . Q • 'r?. 111 1 1 111 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
, ~ 111 1 , ~ 1 1 1
Y ~r 1 'S 1 1
Pr krx>wn as EX 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1
r Qr/ ' Vii~e een, Rock Motes N,C. 1 1
1 M ' - 1 11
~ 1
1 1
~ ~ . ~y 11 ~ - N V 11 s+~ i 1 1
cuv 1 ~ ~
. /`r a~ ~r
~
- \
t~A 1
- ~ ~
t i , ~ V ~
~K ~ ~ : ~ 1 ` ~ ~ ~ ,Ak, TOTAL ~'AGT 3.trl A 1 c.
~ (x.24 f~cEUa~s 1
~ ~ zoo 250 3(#D 350 400 1 , ~ - ,
~AMF'L~ PLOT8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
R N0. ~ DATE: DESCRIPTION: gy. CAD: ~ ~
E ~ 10-34-95 T WE LANDS IMPACT J.M.S. M.G.Jr.
V ~ 2 it-2-95 WETLANDS IMPACT /BLDG LOCATION J.M. M. S. G.Jr.
S 3 11-3-95 ADD PARKING ~ ADJ. CIRCUIT qTY J,M.S. M.6.Jr.
~ ~ r; r 0 ~
N ~.~.fi
S ' "i 3 x ~ _N^
JOB NIRI. HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE DES
92-014 1" .100' SEPT. 8 1 - 2 , 995 J.M.S.
9214 VERTICAL SCALF DRAi1M BY CHKO
D-0415 - M.G.Jr. - - J. M. S. = > r
,:s~ ~ ',a

c Copyright 1995 Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A. There drowln how been pre red ae instruments of service for o p Mte or buN1lir? improwm~nt and remcilns the pr erty of the L .r erty of the 11e! for use u+u~p hie supervision. No reproGuction or other use i9 allowed without his permission.
L t ~ 1 t
BEFORE YOU'DIG M ~ 1 Iki. Mwtt M ~?AN a tl ~ ' 1
CALL TIXl FREE ~ ~ ~ 1 1
1-800- _ 632-4949
NORTH - -
CAROLINA _ ! ONE-CALL - ~ ` - " - _ ~ ~ 1 , 1 _ 1 , .c
t ~ CENTER 1 11 1 ~ 1 1 0
r ~ 11 ~
~.td . 1 1 1 :u. 11
i ~ 1 1 1 1
1 1
' II,,, PROPOSED 1 ~ 1~1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~
DIVERSION ` BERM , . ~ . , .,T..:.. 1 1 1 1 1 1
r.... 1 1 1~ ~ ~ ~ 1
y~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ C)U~'PARC~.. 1 t 1
t , / 3 iy` Y~.~e.Y ~ ~3 1 1 1~1 ~ 1 1 ,
1 h:,' ii/ ~~r .t - , 1.15 Ac. ~ 1 1 1
j3O' ,ti'.~t.. 'y ;,,'~/i~l 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 11
rU ~vcK ~ ~o iii!; ';';'i ~ 1 V 1 1
a , p.. ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1~
, \ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 ~
~ ~ 1 1 1~ t 1 1
i % 1 1 / 1 1 1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 1~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1
~ 1 1 1 1
L ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ . \ , 4UTPAA~. 1 1
'-40 NOT 01S1UR9 ~ ,-w> e K 1 1 1 1 1
,i~:~y.,r 'Ika,S': 1.42 Ac. ~ 1 1
t ~ 1 ~1 i\ 1 1 1 i
~ Ary \ t 1 i Y~ 1..~.• 46'F\ i, ~Y. ~iA~.~ . ~.rk 4 l / I \ ~ s 1~ 1
t t 'r'~ Y tt i ~1
` C~~O E~.. } C / i 1~ 1 1 1
J ATURAL f011E8AT i-• 2 DAY }i ; .r ~ DRAw DOINV) ri~ ~r , i . ; 1 1 } 1
,w'~ i' } ~ . , t ~ ~1y . 1 1 \ , 1
~y~t~.. / / ~ 'M„~, I t 1~~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~
' ~ S. I a. I I ~ ,A ti 1 1 1 1
,PERMA#ENT POOL, ~ 1
I , ~ ~ i/ ~1 ~ 1 1 1 ,
BASIN ~ ~ ~ ~ % V 1 1 ~ 1 1~~1 1 ,
~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 1
1 I I I I I i ~ I I I t I I I 1 1~ ~ ~ OllT'PARCEL y1 ~ ~ 111
I _ _ ~ 1 ~ •1 1~ 1 1 1
1 1 f ~ - w. ~ t_ ff/f~1,/'/ t ~ ' 1. i 5 Ac. ~ ~ t 1 <<~ ~ 1
1 / 1 ~:~~/i~.
~ . . ' 1 ~ . ~ 1 3
~ / ~ ` / . ~ t tit
~ , ~ ~ 1 i; ' ~ 1
/ _ . 1 , \ 1
1 i. + 1 ~ 1
i ~ ~ 1~t 1 11
i ~ - ~ ~ ~ L G655, 1 1 1 ~ 1 E~• rcRp~~'S 1 1 1
T ~ -.r,., , ~ to i 1 1 • ~ ~ 1 ,1
d ~ r 1 1~ 1 ~ ~ ~i
A r ~ . t 1~~ t
~ ~ 1~~ , t ~ 1
- ~ 1 RDEE 5 1~ 1 f ~ EX. HA i , i
Y Y - ,1 r - _ ~ 1
Pr krawn as fi ~Y ~ 1 +w ~
Qreen, Rods 1~locmt N.C. i \ - ~ 1
/ ~ t
~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1
i sr~• ~ S ~
\ r ~ , ~ tray d - ~ g. ~ 1 ` E r e~ tN / ~ ~ ~ Y CREW
.J STON ~ NN
p~, \ ~
\ i
~~~.`r+wyp~Mr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
. ~ ~ EJC18T~iG ~ 1 1
SCA1~ N TOTAL ~IF'ACT = 3.07 Ac. ~ , - -
~ ~ 1 O 3 350 400 ~ 0 00 20 00 (7.24 INCLUDES 4.17) 5 3~o aoo \ ,
`v -
~ /
r~,
R N0. ~ DAZE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD: f E 1 10-30-95 WETLANDS IMPACT J.M.S. ALG Jr. -A~ ~ "
V :-e s- v: it
2 11-2-95 WETLANDS IMPACT /BLDG LOCATION J.M.S. ALG.Jr, ~ i ~ a ~
. ~vr, . .
O . t.. '~t
N `r,
S
JOB MUM. HDRIZONTM SCALE DATE DESIGN!
92-014 . ~pp~ SEPT. 28, 1995 J.M.S.-
92i 4 YERT!CAl SCALE DRANK BY CHRD
D-0415 - M.G.Jr. - J.M.S.- ~ ,

~ rovement an0 rarna~s the pr. rty of the En eer fpr ut+e ' fpt ut+e urnllM hk M'yiM14~- NO reproCuction or other uee is oilowed without hie p•rmisslon. .n ~
awls a hova been pro sd ae kaetrumeMe of sarvlae far o partioulRU' Nts or truNdln Copyright 1995 Applon Coneultln Engmeera, P.A. Theee dr 1 1 ,
~ 1
1 ks. Mwr w ~r?~ BffORE M •111?~ ~ ~e ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1
YOU DfG
CAELTOI1iREE 1-800- ~ 1 ~ ~ t _ _ ~ ` 1
632-4449 _ 1 i ~+NO - ' " 1 1
NORTH I CAROLINA r _ - - - - _ . ~ - 11 ~ 1 1 ~4
ONE-CALI Q . ~ 1 1 ,
CENTER i` ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 11
i'M 1 1 \ 1
/l 1 1 1 1 ` 1 1 1,1
1 1 1 1 ~ Ill, ~ ~ ~ i, t \ ` 1
PROPOSED
avERSION BERM . \ ~ ~ \ 1 1 I,1
i 1 1 1 1 ~~'v'~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ . y'~ OUTPAR~. 1 1 1 , ,
i , 1~ A ~A~~\ 1 1 1
1.1SAc. 1 1~ , 1 1 1 ' ,
/ % ~ ~ ~i;;,,, „ ~ 1 ~1 A 1
I~, ~ , ~ ~ ~~~k t 1 1 1 l///i /i i; ; , - / 1 1 ~ iii 1 ~ 1~1
Rp aR ~ 1
o~ ~ ~ ~ A 1 1 1 ~ ~ r, 1 1 ~
1 1 1~1
1 1 1 1
1 / ~ A 1 ~ 1 ~ ` l~ 111 1
~ , /l, ~ i~ ~ i%/i`/~ 1 1 ~ 1
r. n:E . ~r c-ta~~sc~,-o~ \ ~ ~ \ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A Olft'P 1 1 ~
r--DO N01 pl$TURg f , NETlAb1DS Ac. ~ 1 1.4~ 1 t
''7 /~y d ~ 1 1 ,
~ , , 1 ~ 1 , „ ~ ~ 1 1
h1.: ~ ' ~ / / / / 1
1"' a ~ It / i ~ ~ 1 \ 1 1 , 11~
0~ f' 0'~ ~ / / ~ ~4~' ~ s., . t 1 ~ ~
d3 ~ NATURAL fOiiEBAY ~ 1 , J {2 DAY ~tAW OONN ;+~a ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
~ . f, -px ~ 1 ' ~ ~ 1
\ ~ 1 \ 1 1 1,
N ~ e v ~ ~ ; 1 1 ~ ~ ~ / 1
1 1 1 1
,PERMANENT POOL ~ t x , , ~ / stw ~ , 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 , 1 1 1
eAS~+ ~ 1 1 \ ~
~ ~ ~ / ~1 1~~1 w , ~
i . ~ r..~ / /i i ~ - ~ #1 t 1 1 - , 1 ~ ,
~ ~ ~ I mot:,, i i~ ~ ~ _ ~ i ,'i; ~ ~ % 1.15 Ac. A ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ / % 1
~ , C~~'1' 1 ~ 1 - 1
L d+ ~ ~ - c~ 1
/ \ ~ ~ 1 \ -~trir 1 1
/ ~ ` 1
/ ~ ' i is 1 1 1 1 r i ~ 1 1 1 - ~ ~ ,1 \
~ p,CGE~~S 1 1 1
/ i' / / 1 9j . o H~R~ 1 1 1
i t 1~\ ~A 1 1, 1
r _ ~ ~ 1 1
$ 1~1 1 1 1~
r r ~ 1 ~ ~
- ~ NARpEE 1 1 Ex. 1 1 , ~ 1 1
v ` ei,..- _ ~ .r. ~ - _ 1 1
~ 7
T pr known am ~ 1 1 1 1
N.C. Rock Mount V~laye Qreen, r ~1~
1 1
J ~ r 1 s,,'` ~ cENr~ ~ 11
a - ~ cw4a ~ ~ ~ STpNY ~
.3 N _ ~ , .o - ~ n
~ r ~ - r ~ ~ n~
y v ~ ~ ~ ~ J
~ ~ ' ~ \ \ _ ~
~ ( \ 1 ~ ~ 't !
- AL - , . ~f \ n ~ ! 1 ~
ANU _ ~ ~ , ~ \ / / i~ \ - v t: V i f
~ ~ L SCALE 1 IMPACT - 3.07 Ac. 1 ' - - - I ~ TCTA~. - ,
N 4 7.24 INCLUDES 4.17) \ , -
_ 0 300 400 O } 20 , L00 ~
. 3
~
' Y
DESCRIPTION BY: CAD: II , ei~ - R N0 t~ DATE.
IMPACT J.M.S. M.G.Jr ~ kf. ~ E i t0-30-95 WETLANDS
V S I#APACT /BLDG LOCATION J.It.S. M.G.Jr. 2 t l -2-95 WETLAND
I
5 I _ - - r, x,
` P
N - 5 ~ - e
DESIGN _ ;OB VaN. ~ORIZO~ITA~. SCALE Dn~E _ . ~ - `9
-014 - SEPT. 28, 1995 J.M.S.- - 9 - 100
. '~~M~~"t'~kt, ~~~4 V~'k'~C'A~. SCALE 'iRAWN B'. CN~(C _
- M G.Jr. - J.M.S.- D-0415

o /
v

~ ~ _ ~ M
W
i~~ ~
7

~R .
pP
~ ~
I
1 . ~ ` M1 /

r
1
1(
~ p°'° ~ ~
_
~
A ~ / ~.~e
.
~
f•'' ~
.
• •

~ctk}kSEl5CtA1:._:__ .4~?,Gbob.P. - -
(~cr~ir.Mi? T+tEJCS~ ~o, eoa8t. ~:9s7 A- r ,.y _ I
QC~tCr.Cwl~iQ~ 6AS~4~Saf +G.o~ab 1
- ~y ~T`^T1'Wi~3 GSG , 4ar~ - t4iaAl1 A. -
Q ~@wtr ctit,~ gb, i4~Ar. 'i;t5~71; _ i
~ ' `
+~~e~w~T•~sr ~ 14~, ooos.~ a:esa w. -~r~-«, a.. woe
Q aTM?ccr8~ 4s~i eA1es ~:'t~,cad sue, ~.e~ A• - - - _ ----LJ~I~L? PLAN ~r TARAYTOWN CENTE~1
O GAE1k.-~~L+YtE Zbl.'15o4.R G AiOA. -~s~s-
`.._~41y~": #..~~4Ffi95lA~'Gtt~r~t-,~o~6_z t'iL~N#--: Ti~sRTN C~L~COLIN# .
~~-iiil~ a1blkGNlL?.A3 TEl44f

B C D Q
I~
Ci. I
~ . Ci.
Iii
W W W 1
~iFf NN ~IYIr W W W W W
1 W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W a
J W W W W W W W W W a .,t
'1~ E W W W W W W W W W W N r n
On `S W W W W W W W W W
~~pA'rq/N ~o q~
+F • 3 qp W W W W W W W W W ~ 6
3 Fq 4~ ~ ; /~v ` W W W W W W W W
' ~ ~ ` ~ i' W~ W W W W W W W
~ ~ ~ i @ / \ \ W W W W W W W W.
~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ y , ~ ~ ~ 'l N~ O W W W W W W W W ~
~ yt i ~ , 0 W W W W W W W ,
' ~ y 1 W W W W W W W
' \ ~ ~4b...: W W W W W
I W W W W W W W ~
` \ I ~ ~ ~ 0 TOPOGRAP~~IICAL
I R ! , "WETLANDS DELI E r ~ z` W E,?ST OF~POWERuNE W W W ~
J t„ ~ ~1 ~l EASEMENT. i ~ O, \ W W W W W W
~ y ~y ~`ET. ~ ~ t~ \ , GQ ~ P \ Oy W W W W W W ~N .
~ W W W W W W
1~ 1 _ ~ ~W W W W W W W W
i y ! sf,.,. uWU~ ~Alll y W W W W W W
~ t_~:~ ~i &Rk1WM IMM N I I WPIWWII '1 } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~IW~ W W W W W W W
~3 QL~ ~ y 1 ~7„q. u ' iillli ~'l.~ ~ 2 ~ ~ n
~ ww~ww ~a c ry ~ ~ x ~M~~ ~ ~ \ u ~uuuawu>, Ij ~i~y s~g~ ~ W W W W W W W W
~ F ~ r n n y . I ~ ~ Q ..,..,r, ' . h. I a ~ ~ I I W W ~W W W W W W
1 N L
e a„~- _ , ~ y y ,,."I u \ I W W W \W W W W W a
I t . < y r„i y +V ,~'r , i i W i ,
y ,.y y y y W ~ W W W W W W
'i\~~\ lP.` ~ ~ y y y y y y~ Vt W~ , r r~ j W W W W ~ W W
~ y y Jy Ji y. y y y ~ . i ~ W t,~, / W W W W W W •J W W W m
~ a ~ a / R I
` \ ~ `Y ~V y i y y y l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W r,a~ W _ W W 1 ~ W~ W W W W W~ W W ~fYfW~I~I~I~Y~Y~~ f
. a •Y W ~V W ~"w~+~-.,• I i11YYlli~® y' W j ~ ~ W W W W W~ W "~'ti.,y~ ~ • .
- ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~,_ry!+„~i \ ~ 114 ~`I' `I' ---••Y---~?__-~-_~~~ W •G W y Wj .,j W ~ W~ W W W W W - a} -114 li\,,.,r ~ /
0 ~ A ~ t ~ W W W W W W W W ~W W W W W I ~,.I W W W\ W W W W ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f k
1 \ a ~z W \W ~ W W W W W W `W W W W wf,~~~; ~W W W W W W'Y , ~ ~
~ A W W W 1 W W W W W W W / / W W + 1 W W ~ y ry
1 \ W y!'4^ ~~':a W rt +.lt W W W`~ W W W ~ I W W W ~ ~W u~ 1
~ ~ y y y y y y y y ~`\y ~ ~ ~ t ~ x ..W „
~ f1 ~Y y' W ~Y W W y ~Y \~k` ` 1 W W ~1c` W - W ~v~ W W /„„y ~W W W W ~ W
~ ft J+ y y y y y y y a~ i ~ W W y .\`W W ~rz W W qtr W W W S>
4 W W W W \`~W~ W WN7~ •a~. W •.~fr W W W W W Jg•F ` <.w. - _ I, Of, .
f ~ J~ ~Y ~Y W y y y W y 1 O W W W W W ~D^.~_ W W ~ ,~Y W W W W W W W
`N I' ? y y y y y y y y y i W W W W W W W ``W "~Y--~ W y~ f~ I W W W W W W W \ y
~ I y y ~Y y W W W ~ ~f, W W W W W W W W-. W~ ~ Rp +31 ~ W W W W W W ~ ~ i1d ~ J.~{ ~
r m) y y y y. y y y y. ~ t W W W ~ y ~,W W W ~ ~,4 I~' k ~~t~ W W W W W W ~ "`4 ~W ~ . I~ r 1~
/ ,~A% yw'`~+~ ~y y y y y:' y y____*----y 115 1. xy. ~ ? ~r ~ _ > ~1,
@~ W l y y y y y W y ~ W y V~ i ~ I W W W W W '~~Y W „ ';~k'
~ ~Y ~ W y y y y~ y ~ y y y ~ r a~},~ W W W W W W ~D. y' r Wp'm' ~ W W W W W
~ % ( . m'----CV y y ~Y ~Y ~Y W y
{ I ~ ~ y W y y y ~ ~ r C: 51 rs ~ l ~ x:l
~ ~ y y y y y'
r y y +Y ~Y - y y y ~ - _ fit. W \~W, a1~ ~ W W t~ - ...116 ~ ~
~ . y ~Y y y y y y W y ~ 1 ~ ~ V IA ~ ; f c „ ,M , I
1v t ~ l j W W W y y y y y`. y~, ~ N+ W JIW '+F I W it
r' ~ 1 „ _~....,LL LEGEND ~ ~ ~'I16•''~ ~W W riW ~ y",""' L 3 r ~
4
+ y y y y y ~ y W y~ t s _ _ ~ A ~ ~ W y _ CYPRESS /TUPELO /MAPLE Z ~
1 _.I r W I - ~ i~. • ~ ( T
_ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y -,,fir. v+F y ~'~~~`y-.~ W y ~~y y y~ W I r MAPLE ASH PIN OAK WATER OAK ~ / / / I , z X. W / W i ~ W, ~ j ~ II WILLOW OAK SWEET GUM ti-
~ ~ \ ~ y y y y ~ y t .
Y.~'w jF Jy y, y y y ( ~n ~~1 W W ~ \i ' 1~ RED OAK WHITE OAK AMERICAN HOLLY
~ MAPLE /LOBLOLLY y,..,. W W i I I ~ a`, 1 f ~
~ ~ s:~. ,al * ?P ' W W I ~ ~
~i _ I COTTONWOOD /BLACK WILLOW W I 1
~ I i ~ ~ W ~ W l I ~ MAPLE /ASH /SWEET GUM /PIN OAK
~ 1 ~ ~ W W ~`W W `~W W ~ WATER OAK WILLOW OAK /PERSIMMON
1 ada ~ ^~C:'+, yj W W W SYCAMORE HOLLY W W ~W W ~
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
y( y 1 y ? y i ~ R 1 y ~L ~U y W ~ MIXED SHRUB W ~ 1 ~ ALDER
~ , I q ~,i I W `:r 1 SHARP WILLOW
~ f y 1 y y 'x~ \ DOGWOOD ~ a W ~
~ ~ J'~ % - ^ ~ 7 y1 ' BUTTON BRUSH ~ ~ ~
~
I ~ y ~ y " ~ „s,,,..~x'" •~-„•~~-„-,~•~~-EXCAVATE TO WETLANDS ~
7~ ~W y ~ ~Y x z~.«
• `118-___ ~ I ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ -WETLAND CONTOURS
m I I vi vi
` . UPLAND CONTOURS ~ ~
~ ~ v` , r ^ ar ~ i o~ FILL TO DIVERT FLOW o
h~ y y ~ ~ SFc
N N i ~ \i y W ~ ~vt~ y NOTE FOR PROFILES: ~
BETWEEN CONTOURS:
EXIST.; \ ' ~\~r' 7y~ 110-112 TEN HORIZONTAL FEET o c; I
112-114 TEN HORIZONTAL FEET a N
v F- m ( j
_ _ ~ °~~d,. ~ - ~ . _ ~ X71 ~ ~ w w aN ~
~ N &7. ate,-,. .~'--_x. - - _ ~ i ~R~_ GENERAL NOTES o 0 1. To o ra hical information surve ed b Jo ner, Keen and Associates.
R~i H.AS'St$L'W' ir''~ ~ p 9 P Y Y Y Y~ • 2. Mitigation Plan and tree section performed by Wetland Science Application,
S ST - Dr. Bob Pierce o
ORE RD. S. R/^~-- R.1601
`Z., ai ~ I BEFORE ` II ~
YOU DIG ° CALL Tql FREE o
~ _ ~ enn N
632-4949
]4 a = ~ NORTH o
SCALE CAROLINA JOB NO. ONE-CALL 92-014A
0 100 200 250 300 350 400 CENTER d d D-0415 z -
A B ~ D D ~ F ~W>-~,-oz~n MI.1
1 I
1' i I

o /
v

~ . ter"
«r

~ ~ ,
0

f
~r
P~`*~ .
5~'
, ~
x_ _ ; ,.r.~-
I
r ~ ~ ' r /Ir \
T
' I
r _
. t~'
a;_ ~
CJ"

~ ~ti '
i
f` l
! / / ~ .
f' ~ '

Q. crt~r.~.q T+~Ji~ ~o; eoatxr. :4s7 +4- _
Q of-r~~Gr e,uc~re ~a8~q~s of +c.as A, f
4
p ~v~cr e, any ~ -
Q e.r~c~ ~~w~1 - ao.000AP, .crew. j~-
' ~
Q MoTtL' Za6,~o0A.f. 4.~3tk. ~ _ r-.tea ~ -i O ~B4'P~~M1T• F7MSS AoeO~ 1 46. Qoosf a.D64 A. _ -
a s,., -son _ .,e .rs- „r
O 6TMt~9~ ~!IlEli aRIC~ ~1~,G38 t~T, G.6E6 A. f~"~~..1.,~.NG? PLAN ~TARP,YTOWN .CENTER
~Ei3~tFf_': ti~'~KTN- ~I.~4L1 Nf~.. ~ _
o ~ClIE~~xlX~~E 'La1.1504.R G.~{~~ .~ti T ~r.35 ~1 _ G1RL1.8.3. ~'Es144'~ t
~-ct~t- _ - - - -

i ~ i t
1
A e o I
I ~
D e
J
` SCALES 1'=100'-0` ~ I I
TUTAL SF = 103,041 Sf ~ ~ /
~ ~ TOTAL # OF PARKS = 827 ~ ~ ~ r
i ~
1 l~
~3 Q41 / , SF l ~l 1 l; ~ I

~ ~ ~ I ~
r
r ~ . ,
~3c'y, ~ l j !
~ ' I I
1 I ~ ; l !i l~ ~ i / ~ ,
o ~ /t~ ~ ~ I / ~
r /
/ ~ ~ r ~
~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~
~ 1 ~ ~l I ~l, ~
1 Y I~1
i ~ J~;I moo
~ I I I ~,~;I~' ~1~ l
EX. ACESS Y BRIDGE i - - - - - - - _ _ ~ READ ~-_-T T ~,I~ I ~Ifl~,
1~ Ir I I I
I I I I I 1 ~ i I II
I I I I I
I~ I I
; ~I
- ' l l I I i 2 HARDEE S 1 I I• I( a
RESTAURANT I I II I I I I I I
II I •
II I
II I
II I
I I I
~I,III , 111 s. _
JI U.S. aGMvo 300 9 C3'f °pQSS
(WESLEYAN BLVD)

c Copyright 1995 Appian Coneultlnq Engineers, P. A. These drowinge hove been prepared os InatrumenG of aervloa }q o P~tk~lOr Mb Or buNdln Nnprovament and rarrlatrja 11fN r N tha gn P uPar for w En for uN unNr ha wporvbkx+. No reproduction or other use is allowed without hl~ psrrnfoslon.
1
3 BEFORE ~ 4
YOU DIG CALL TOLL FREE _ - - - - - - - ' A/w,~i 1
1-800- - - ~ _ _ _ 1 1
632-4949 NORTH _
CAROLINA ~ ' ' ' - ~ ` 1 - 1 - - _ - EX. ACCESS RAMP - - - - 1 1 R~',
ONE-CALL ~ ' _ _ - - CENTER _ ~ `
1 1 1
i 1 l 1 ` , ~ 1 1 1 O
1 ~ 1 1 1
s. I..~ 1 1 1 1 1
,+•r ~ t • i ~ 1 D 1 1 Z 1 1 1 , ,
~ ~ A'1, , ~ 1 t,' 1 1 1 1 ,
I , E~ 1 1 1 1 C , A
1 ''^r.. r R 1 1 P ~ P , ~ , 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ,
1-.., ~ 0 # 1 1 1
~i_ o, ~ 5 1 P~ ~ , ` ~ 15 1 1 1
I ~ 1 1. 1 1 1 1 ~ p' 1 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 1
1 ! ~ 1 ry' N +Y) ~ 1 1 1 1 1
i a~~ 1 1 i 1 , f~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ I I ~ 1
1 i~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 f 1 1 1
~ ~ tl' ~ ~0~ I I I f 1 1 1 1 ' f f ~ ~ t\ ~'r\ n~ 1 1 t x
~ I I I f `t`om d'. ~ f 1 1 1 ~ I 11 1 1 ~ I 1 1 1 t
~ ` 1 1 1 1 ~ , 1 1 1 ,
ati +~'`s E~ C P 1 1 1 1
,S t -a+ ; A tt! ~ ~,~,r. to t~, y .s~'Lo + ",t Y ~ t T,+~. i t. R a 1 I ~ ~P 1 1 C, ~ 2
4 r ~ ri, i~ s r'~~ ~clg3.u tt S .j ~ , ~ 0 ~0 1 Q! ~ # 1 , ,
Tip r~ ~ ~4 ,''~~r tT a ;y ~ p,c . ~ 1, 1 1 , f ~2 1 1
- t }:''yK q~k~~Ft. yew .3 Mrr:-• Yz. f r 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 q
t a ~1.y ~crP yx. 1• ~ Q N' ~ 1 1 1 1 I; r 1 1
. . .ti , I ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1
O J 1 I 1
~ c ! ~ 1 1 t 1 p,'1 1 1 1
v i' M1 'l. 1`~W 1 1 1 E 1 R 1 1
1 ` , F~~ 1 1 1 i
1 1}, X15 " 1 1
K~. ? 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 \ 1
t~ Ca ~t ~ ~C f . V- ~j~ 1 1 1
~ '1 1 1 1
ty ~ 1 1 1 C 1 R 1 1 P?
1 J y.. r 4 j~ P , ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ;~3 ~ 1
i'..~..ti. ~j.Y a c • 1 1 ~ 1 ~J 1
.1 ~ 3'- ~ " ~ ~ 1
. } ~ ~ ,1 _i 1 , ,13 t
f „r ` 1 F~
~ ~ ~ s , ~Z 5 e 3
~ ~ ' Y'+ i ~ r ~ ~ . 0 2 , 0
/ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~ SS ~ 1 CE ~ 1 ,~5 p,C S 1 1
~ ~ * ~ . EE 1 t EX~ RD 1
~ ''.r.t 9~ ~ NA 1 1 .6-- TO 1 1
~ ~ `ter. , ~ 3 1 1 ~~o• 1 1 1,~ 1
/ ~ r.. ~ - ' 1 •
" " ~ _ P'.R;; 1 1 1
S - 1 E ~ 1 E R D ~ R , A N
1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1.1
fl known sa T _ ~ ~ 1 _ ~ 1
f Vi~ge C~r~en, Roar Mount N.C. l ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,1~
~ . 1, 1
1 , 1 ~ ` 1
a 6~ ~ ~ fig. ~ ~ 1 1 ~
r
r E ~ LAN 1 TER
v I 1 X• ~ E I 1 EEK ,
of ~R , t-,..,/ _ - ~ ecl~; pN Y
~ ST XIgTN~K3 _ - _ _ m, ,
- - -r . ~
TOTAL M~' (a. ~ s INCLUDE 1 W 1 ~ C ~TAL M~'ACT 3.98 Ac. 1
~.15 INCLUDES 4.17) ~C , 1 ~
1 1 ~
N S AMPLE Pt AMPLE PLOTS 11 1 1
SCALE ~ OF PARKING SPACES TOTAL BLDG. SQ. FTC. = ING SPACES = 1,283 ~ 1 SQ. FTG. = 254,328 ~ ~ ~
0 100 pOp ~0 PARK{NG RATIO = 5.05 300 350 100 - ~ ~~l ~ ~ , ITIO - 5.05 / 1,400 S.F. ~1 ~
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE _ ACREAGE = 45.36 Ac. \ R`~0
TOTAL BUILDING AREA = tPR DING AREA = 25.75 Ac. ~ TO ~ i ,4-.
R N0. ~ DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD:
E V
~ ai ~raa~~~,
~'`~,3 r zt _ .
I ~ may, ,_v J .A. .:Aii7 N' ~ .«Y:s ~ r C•
:;r..-. .r . . N
;r; S ,
JDB NUM. HORI20NTAl SCALE DATE DESpIy
92-014 ~ ° .100' APRIL 26, 1995 J. - ~ r~~ ~ ~ a~ all. S. s~
WAL-MIN1 vrRTicu scALE ~ `~~%x s~~ r DRAWN BY CHKD
D-0415 - M.G.Jr. - J.M.S,-

or athK uN ie Glowed without his permission.
r the prop.rty of tIN (~?~IMrr far us. ~ far uss under hb suPM~n• No reproduction ?~In..r 4
.tt~ or puadin9 ~,pro,Nmant and ~nenb of .ervic• for ° oartk~?
drawlnpe nova been pr•D~•d ~ ~ ~ > >
Meera. P.A. Theee t 1995 ADD~O" Cp~sultin9 En c Copy~4n
6 _ _ i~-:
Lk, FENCE ~ BEFORE Ch. 1 ~ N
rou o~c ns Inside - - - ~EE R~ _ f-way o~`
cAU Tau Right o ~-aoo-
632-;9~9
NORTH $ , . CAROLINA ,
E-CALL r ;.Ma° 'F ,.,r.-
CENTER , e"s' G y ~ F A
~e .LW- . ,r may. pUTFARCEL , i3
•Y. ` 1.15 Ac.
1:.
~ i
5 ~ ~ ~ ,f~ l / -Y

r r i ~ ~
r ~ / ~
/ ~rrr i` ~ / 1
r r r ~ ~ r i rrrr ~i ,
r r r ~ ~ i~ rrr ii ~ OIJTPA ~ ~~AA
i i .~r.~ ii Y' ~a
~z„ t ` ~ 1.42 Ac. •
G r r -3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- , ~ ~ ~ ; ~
r r 4 r r ~ ~:v,::; Y -
` r r-' , W
r ~ r ~ ~ - i
C , e~~~: j
r r 3 ~ r
I I r-' , ~
r' r ~ ~ r r r r r
~ ~ ~ r r
r r r r r ~ { WATER {
\ -y. STORM ,
,,A WAL-1 \ IYI!"?~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ CEIITER ENTRY, RIGHT GARDEN, TLE RI{' W 'r
r r ii AC~ ~ ~ C-fQa-SGL-OL F r r • 1.15 Ac.
r r-- i i err ~r-'r ii rr n ii r f
r~-'~rrr ~4 _ r - G~1' CITY
r r r ~
r r r,
r ~ „ ~ ~
ter. . ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ f 1
may... k,~, ~
~ ~ ~ ` R
/ ~ i
4y^
T L A ~ S r~ ' i
A T
Y r
- ~ /
~ r
- ~
RCS known e?s i
Pr N.C. p~~~ mount f ,a .ter ~ ~ ~
_ . J
_1;
R l . ~
S~ F oR ~,t t-~ - S o~ , 5~ N 1A °c~ ~
~ r , oa~`~ - J E o4 R
~ ;ty "1 L L ~ ~
P9• .
_ 18 _ 12 Ac. 4.25
N A 1 M 1 FACT TOTAL
- ~ INCLUDES 4.11) (8.42
C _
_ ~ PLOT$

350 0 ~p 250 ~ 0 10 3
- ~ . _ ~ - A
i
N x i
BY:
N0. D DALE:
R E
V ry..
5 g
O
N S
DATE ~ ;f;; HpI11IpNTAI SCALE M.S.-
SEPT. 28, 1995 J. - 4 - 100' 92 ~1 ~ - CMKD
ORAYAi BV 9214-WOt yfgflCAL SCMf J.M.S.-
_ M.G.,k. -
p-0415

" rer aM 1 1996 ian ConsuFtin En Mn, P.A. ThON drawings hOV born oa inetrurnant~ of oervk~ too M!i or o11~{ fN~M Kt N tlN ~ Nee No rePraduotion or ottsq use Is allowed without hie pa'mieeion.
Copyr AlDP 1 1 ,
L 1 ~ ~ 1 ,
BEFORE YOU DIG r~~. ~ ~1
CALL TOl1 FREE ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ,
t-800- _ _ _ _ _ . _ 632-4949 ~---__~~s- - ~ - ,
NORTH - - ~ ~ 1 _ 1 1
CAROL~A - - - ONE-CALL - - ~ - - - _ _ _ _ 1 11 1
CENTER ~ ~ ~ 1 , o 1 1 ~
1 1 1
1 11
:r 1 1 1
' 1 1 1~ 1
~ ; i' ~ , 1 1 1 tl , A 1 1 1 1 ~
A ~ 1 1 X11 ~ 1
.a~ ~ ~ W:., 1 1 1 1 a ~'Alk+~l 1 1 1 ,
b b +i>s 1 ` 1 t>r 1 1 1 1 ,
1 1 1 1
a,:~ 5 ,R~ t~ 1 ~ , 1 1 1
,y0 ~ P / 1 1 11 ~ 1
~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 '~w 1 \ 1
~ ~ 1 i 1~1 ~ 1
U 1 1 1 5 ~ 1 1 1 1
1 I p 1 ~ 1 1 X11 1 1
- ~ 1 I r 1 \ 1 1 ,
I ! / 1 1 1 1 ' ,,1 1 1 ~ 1 1
I s 1 t , -.,,r c , ~ 1 1 , 1
. -.r. ~ d.. 4 ~ 1 1 1 1 0 olr~ w 1 ~
______,_,-0 I t t Y . ~ t ! ~ war 1' ° 1 1 1 toy: ` 1 1
~ rr~ L^ ~ Ae, 1 1 ,1 ,
! - ~ ~ aigyit r r j 1
~i ~ ' i'. ' 1 1 1
~ yr: v4f a i ~ ~ 5, is ~ ~c ~ d \ , 1 1 ! 1 1
t s. , S , -n
a1~.'!~j 6s''! r rry,~,. "i't^ t}L;.','~a ~F w Jay t I .IF. it I 11 ~1~
~ 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1
! r ~ S I / - r I i 1 1 1111 ,
I t I ~ 1 1 1 , d ' 1 1 1
i ~ , ~ 1 1 1 1
PERMANEWT POOL~~ ,~~I Y s 1 1 1 i ` 1
! sw~+ ~ , 1 t 1 1 11 1~~
~ ~ BASIN ~ a I ~ 1 I r, ~ 1 1 1 ~
li ~ t 11 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~
I ~ i. I i~ I t i i f ~ 1 \ 1,~1 z °1 1
~ ~ I i t t 1 1 ~1 ~ a 1
~ ~ I ` J i 1 i y~ 1
~ I L I I 1
~ ~ / I i 1 1 1
~ ~ 1
4~.. '.'y ~ 1 It1
1
J . ` / 1 \ 1 1 ~ ~ 111 ,1
~ / "+r, r ~ r SS ~ 1 1 1 1 G~ 5 1 EX. h ~ 1 1 1 1
~ / r , M s0 111 1 ~1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 11 1
3 / u l 3 i 1 1 1 111 ~
~ ' C ~ 11~ 1 1
0 C , 1 1 1 1
Y EX. H 1 t , - ~ 1
1 1
T ~ / r 9 r1 ~ 1 k, ~ 1
i ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1
, ~ w 1~1
/ ~ 1 1 1
iAAj" 1
~ . ~ ~
h y ~ ~ J sue' ~
J , ~ ,
UE ~ . 1
\ , ~ EX~'T1NC~ ~
~ , ~ \ ~ 1 ~ ~
~ - ~ ~:~~:~~~~~:~~5~~ TOTAL N~'ACT - 3.81 Ac. ~ V 1 r
qN
SCALE r 1 , ~
100 200 250 300 350 400 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ SAM~'t..E PLOTS
Z 3
DES(~tIP110N: BY: CAD: k~' k y R N0. ~ DAIS:
E r., V ~1 s'
C~° .a}^ ~ mac.. ¦
S +1 I~ 1 Y 1 Y
I 0
N -
,pg FIORIZDNTAL SCALE DATE DESIGN
. 92-014 - OCT. 14, 1995 J.M.S.- ' ' - .7 1 - 100 l 9
wAl-M~N1 4ERTICAL SCALE DRAWN BY C°~k0 r
M... ~ s,.; D-0415 - M.G.Jr. - J. ~

C Copyr t 1963 Appian ConaWtlnp EA sen, P.A. 1ba~ drowM s haw been pr _ d ~ 01 aKV{gs tpr P t ?ilrwM»
~N! IHo +adueitlan or oMsr uas aN+o-wiM without h1s p~na?~Naa.
1 BEFORE
YOU DIG ~ M ~ 1 ~
CALL TOt! FREE i-a00- ~r+r w ~a ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 11
632-4949 _ _ _ ~ 1 1 1
NORTH ` ~ ' _ _ i ~ _ ~ ~."F
CAROLINA ~ ` ONE-CALL _ _ - - _ - ~ 1 - - 1 1
CENTER - - _ - 1 w~
i ~ - 1 11 1 ~ 1 1 o
i ~ 1 1 ~ c' 1 1
i ~ i ~ ~.r:. ~ 1 ~ 1 1
i r i i 1 1 1 1
' PROPOSED 1 1 i 1 1 11
DIVER~ON I 8ER1~ 1 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 1 ti
~ - .3'~n `t: i 1 1 X11 ~ 1 1 1 1 1
i gyp.. 1 1 1 ~ ~ X11 ~
~ r 1. ~ a i3 1 ~1
1.15 A. 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 i 1
Z ~Up( y'~`' i~... 1 1 t1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~
3y: 1 1 111 1 1
1 ' 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 11
5~' 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ DER ~ ~~~r ~ , / ,~~t 1 1 1 1
B ~1 1 11 1 1 1 1 t 1
ry ~ ~ !r~ tt' 1 1 1 1
} ~ ~ 1 ~ + 1 1 1
x r ~ 2 ~ 1 1
~~"`-w. ~ e~ ,v ji., ~ ~ ii t~s. X , a. 1.+~2 Vic. 1 1 1 t 1
e* a` 1 1 i 1 1
r r 11 1
-(f~0~ ~ t~~y ~ ~ a~ a ~`I dJ ~ t 1 ~ a!a slfi~s i 1 1 1 ~ ti 1
(1 DAY OItA~' . e r ; ~ . ~ rµ~ / 111 1 ,1 ~
1 ~ , 11 1
. - , 1~ to .~t~ur TS ll~ ~ ~~~gdl-~k t 11 1
~ ~f stet 1 ~yf .w t i 11 1 11 s 1 11 1
~ ~ t r ~ o.' PERMANENT POOL~~ Lam, , ~ 1 1 1 1
BASIN A C / 11 1 111
B ~ q 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1
~ I 11 111 E3 1 1
I ~ ~ r 1, 1 1 11 1
I~ 1 l ~ ~ i I I 1 _ / 11 1111 w 1
1 , I ~1 11
1 ~ 1 , 1.15 Ac. 1 ~
~ , ~ ....i~~ C?/~ at. 1
/ ` 1 ~ 1

~ ~ - ~ ~
. ~ ~:r-.l, 1 11 ~ ~ ~ 1
i ~ , w,, ~ ~ i' 1 1 1 1
~ ' ' I 1 1 1 ~ 1 111
.~.r \.r ~ d~ 1 1 1 E~. 1 1 1 1
s a S4 1 1 1 1 1 1~1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1~1 1
~ ~ 1 } 1
t=ug i ~ ~ ,q r
~ ~ , EX. 111 1
Yee t3re~, Rode N,C. 11
111 •t- 1
/ ~ 1 1 1
o^ N f ~ 111 ' ~ ~4~
~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1
~ ~ ~ - k ~,y ~ , aril
. ~ ~ Y d~ 5~ ~
~
...9 A - ~.I 1- ~ 1 ~ t
A#;,. ~ EXkSI"~IQ +
- ~ i 1; ~ ~
H scA~E ~ ~ .TOTAL II~ACT - 3.07 Ac. 1 1
M
0 180 200 250 300 350 400 R 1 i..OTV 1 t i ~ 1
\ i
N0. ~ DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: R CAD: ~ ~ J
• "r s. . . ~ , ,.p.. E 1 10-30-95 WETLANDS fMPACT d,M.S. M.G.Jr.
U 3 2 11-2-95 WETLANDS IMPACT /BLDG LOCATION J.M.S. M.G.Jr.
I .,af . S 3 11-3-95 ADD PARKING /ADJ. CIRCUIT qTY J.M.S. M.G.Jr. ~"»w~~
I i d ;r~
0 .
S a : ,~i .
.
JOB NUM. FIOIUZONTAL SCALE DATE DESIGfI - - ~ 92-014
1" = 100' SEPT. 28, 1995 J.M.S.- R +y L y' 9214 4ERTICAL SCALE DRANK BY CHKD
D-0415 - M,G.Jr. - J.M.S.- .L.,,,. :.,r < ;

i
.
~ ~ ~ ~
- _

ar~~ /Y
p' `
~ ~

x. _ y• / T
o~ d
' / / ~ `
~ I~
_
\ I_
v
e~,. Apo ` ~ ~,u,.
i-
~l
\ ~
A ~ ~ r-
I \I
1
. \ 0 \ ~ ~ , r~ i
I-~
U.s. col 1P++Y•
-
i
- - _ Pi if N _ i - - -r
Q IaOMMSS}91+1A1... 3 r Gbo 6.F. $:'t25 Xc -
O O~'tG! rjW LpM1EF GSA 8, 4'~S 6F. +G.o15 A. .
O~4P?~RTHeit~ - 65Co,4oo3.f t4;od'1 A. .
p w?~m~r ~ a e. i~af z:~a _ i'~ ~i ~
O ~RV~GE AMTIOIJ ~O.OODAP. ,6l8A, Vii,
~~I , i
Q r~wnu.. ze 6, 40o a?. 4.~3a ' ~ . w ~m O N6'84~WT•FM9t i~m09 i 46, owaP. ~.a62 A.
~2 E A LANG PLAN TAPhY TOWN CENTEG~
O 61Ft~BQ Q~I~1) APACE 2~O~GgB BP, G.d66lt~ Z ~c
t~tfk ~~LAI~ Zb1.150s.R G.#i0A• _ x.-#~ssrsrts Qi"

1 ~R ~ ~ 1
1 ~ 1 ,
BEFORE _ • 1
YOU DIG - cAU TaE ~E - - - - - _ ~ 1
t-B00- - X. ACCESS RAMP _ _ _ - - ' \ ~ 1 1 E 1
632-4949 NORTH ~ ~
i CAROLINA 1 ` ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ o
oNE-cAU , CENTER i ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
i 1 1 ~ ~ , 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~
1 1 ~ . Z
~ o r D ~ ~ ~ 1 , ~ 1 1 ~
/ ~ ~ f I / / / / / i , ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 A
is ~ E 1 G 1 1 ~ R , P
~ P 1 ~ , ~ ~ , ~
~ r,~ 1 1 1 L PG' 1 1 ~ ~
~ 5 1 y? 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 ,
o ~5 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1
1 r 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~
I~ ~ 1 ~ 1 G 1 1 ~ ~
N r 11 ~
I I X 1 1 1 ~ I I ,
I ~ 1 ~ I ~t I I I I 1 V 1 1 , :I `t'`t ^n 1 1 1
1 ~ I I I 1 ~t ~ rt I r 1 1 I I I I I u)~ 1 1 1 1
1 rte CA 1 \ 1 1
ti . I Q 1 1 I ~ 1 R P w 11
: , ~P ~ I 1~ 2 1 1
1~.~Q' ,,g , C ~ # ~ , • ~ p,G • ~ ~ 1 ~ ,
_ J II ~2 ~ ~ ~ 1 I 1• ~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~ N~ , 1 1 '
r 1 ` \ 1
1 ~ 0 I 1 1 1
D 3 ~ ~ I ` 1 ' 1 1 1 1
~ C ~W 1 1 ~ pR~ 1 ~ ,
1 ~ RE F~1~ 1 1 1 ,
1 1 I~ ~ 1
a: 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1
~ 1 ~fi:. ~ ~ 1 1
1 t~ ~1~j' 1 \ 1
':j•, 1, 1 \ 1 ti G 1 1
1 'i'. R ~ ~ ~ P ,1 ~ 1
xi. ~ ~ ~ 1 0 # 1~ ,13 G• 1
~ tt`a, 129 ~ , 8fl . 2 S. P 1 5 1 1 ~ ~ S.F: 1 _
F: 1 3. 1
J 1 1 1 ~ ~,1~ 1
~ ` F~ ~ 5~
~'•h 6 . 1 2 5 1
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ -81.5- 2 0 12
_ ~ _ ~ ~ 1 • SS 1 GE ~ 1 p,C S 1
~E 1 15 11 1 EX~ R~ ` 1 ~I P ~ ~
~ ~ • ,9' ~ Tp ~ ~
/ ~ ~ / ~ . ~ ~ ~ 1
E ~ ~ T ~ 1 1
~ - S - it D ,1 1 1
T ~ r o _ S r1 ~ E are E , D R ~ 1
A H ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,
c ,
a Y D A .1 1 _ _ ~
F~c~RE I > S T ~ i / ~ 1 1
Pro rty known ae , Pe 8 S , 1 ~ 1
Qr Rock Kant N.C. i - V'ttlage een, 1 1 ' ~ ~
l pc ~ ~ 1 i
61 ~ 1g' x ENE ~ ERA ~ N1
N ~ ~ CE EX~ EK
r - 1 , RE , _ _ 01 _ c _ NY
I , ' ~1 STO
~ 1X~
~ A ~ M I EXIBT~lQ YVET1-p?ND6 - 1 C 1~
~~~~,~:~'1~: TaTAL ~ TaTAL N~ACT 3.9~ Ac. ~ ,
C - (8.15 INCLUI 4.17 ~ (8.15 INCLUDES ) 1 ~ ,
, ~ ` ,
~ SAIu~LE PLOTS ~ ~ ~ " SAIu~LE , ~ ~ ,
~ OF PARKING SPACE' SCALE TOTAL BLDG. SQ. FTG, PACES = 1,283 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IRKING S AEI. ~ ~ ,
LDG. SQ. FTG. = 254,328 ~ M ~ TpWN
~ PARKING RATIO = 5.0 O 100 200 250 300 350 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE RATIO = 5.05 / 1,000 S.F. RR'( ACREAGE = 45.36 Ac. ~ p 1A ~ ITE T ~ 4.-, ,
TOTAL BUILDIKG AREA UILWNG AREA = 25.75 Ac. 3

N0.0 DATE. DESCRIPTION 8Y: CAD: R 1T
E
~ I
S _
I
0 N
S _
JOB NUA1 HORIZONTAL SCALE DA?E DESIGN ~ r r,, ; t 9
92-014 1" - 100' APRIL 26, 1995 J.M.S.- -
v CHKp . WAL-MIN1 VfR?ICAt SCALE DRAWN B
Jr. - J.M.S.- C-0415 - M.G

3 ~ ~
2
BEFORE
You Dices k, FENCE cAU Tau EE Ch. L
1-8~- Runs Inside
632-4949 Ri ht-of-way 9 N
NORTH CAROLINA
ONE-CALL ~ Q~ .~!I.. q f.~ CENTER r -•s ! , .
y ~ 8 ~ ~ y ~i!~III, Ii!~I~,l;
y ~ _ r . . r . i.:. it i
S _ u
''.L vim.' ,eµ: OUTPARCEL l~1
; I , I f3 ~ , ~ . Ac.
. I 1.15
~ i - ~ ~i / ~ , 5 I ; ;
1 fi , , % ~ ,.,j fi /~//i if/ ~t
'w: ~I L
r r ~ ~ \ ; ~ , ~
r r r ~ i M \
r r r l i -
r r ~ ~ 1 ii r r ~ i ii ~i ~ ~ ~
r r r i i , i ~
r ~ I~ r ii r r r ~ , , ~ , , ~ W I r ~1f1VGV
r r '-F 4.' r r
r. r ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ N
' Nor.. ry . J7_' ~ 1.42 Ac.
4 r
r r r~ ms s, z' ~ ~
~rrr tom.'-'a, i i ~
r r r ~ ~ / r r ~ ~ _ ~ _ i ~i
3 ~ .~rrr _ z ~ ~ w
~rrrr 4 - r r r r ~ ,
rrrr j
r r r r-- r r. r r r ~ 1 .
-~rrrrr.--' ~ ~~1 / ~L
\ STORM WATER 'Ef
MANA(~IENT ^ _ r , WAL-MART'
Rl~'RC ENTRY RI \ r CENTER r ~ FACILITY , , GHT GARDEN TLE
~~-rr-rr,--,~< C_ RI 188-SGL-OL ' OUTPAHCEL
rrr ~~r it N ~1
r r ~ r r ~ ~ ' 1.15 Ac.
Q r r r r r.. r r ~ r r ter.-err ` ~1 - -
,err,-~^' r C~`111T CITY
~,,.r r r r ~ . r ~x`~~,, _
.r,. ~ -s: , 7 . ~ / / ~ , ; ' ` ,
,R. ~ ~
?
/ / /
~ ~ i $ ~
D F a
t I 0
C 0 ~ .
Y _ ~ ~
l ~ ~ r r' ~
~ ~ z 9 ,1 9 9 6 ~
pr known ss ~
Rods Mo~x~t N.C. a'~ l ~ ~
~ J
~ - \ ~ t
N ~ ~ - R - -1 ' 1 1 s
E~ r~ ~ r N, S fOR ~t - - ~ ~ ~ SP tiN~ Mou _ L_~~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~
v SrrM sky ; . ~ J EA of R° -
\ c~<y. • Q a~1~D ~
~ 9 - P9~ ONY
_ - -~a EXk9'1 ANUAL ,2 M - nC 1 L.~11~LN ~ LI
1989 _ " _ o.~.
TOTA C (s.42 I TOTAL ~uIPACT - 425 Ac.
(8.42 INCLUDES 4.17)
- SAID ~ SAI~I..E PLOTS
~ scu.E
" ~ - - 200 250 300 354 _ - 0 100
4 3
1
8Y: CAD: x. R NOD DAZE:
E
~
I ~~r n 5_

N ~
S
DEiVI. ` JOB NUM. HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE
92-014 1 SEPT. 28, 1995 J.M.S.- 1 00
CNKD . 9214-WO1 VERTICAL SCALE DRANK By
M.G.Jr. - J.M.S.- D-0415 -

3 1 1 4
2 1 ~ ~ 1 ,
BEFORE YOU DIG R ~p / 1 1
CALL TOLL FREE ~ ~ 1 w -z ` ,
1-800- _ 632-4949 - - _ _ ~ _ _ _ 1 _ ~ 1 ~
NORTH ~ 1 1 ~ ` 1
CAROLINA ONE-CALL - ~ ~ ~ - - . ` _ _ ~ IgYr _ _ _ ~ _ ~ 1 1 ~C
CENTER ~ ~ ~ , ' i N 1 11 1 ~ 1 1 0 1 1 1 ~
` 1 1
M..~;.a t ~n~' 1 1 1 ~ 1
' I' ~ / / : 1' i T 1 1 1 ~
1 1 X11 1 1
~ 1 I I~ 1 1 ` 1 A 1 1
/ / ( ~ 1 ~ A-~ 1 1 11 1 1
r i i ; a i Fr: ~ a 1 1 1 ~ ~ ' , ~''MC~ 1 1 1 1 '
i~ :fir::'.=~ ~ i . • 1 ~ 1 1 t 1
.T. v~;'. J ~ a / / ~ti yr, 111 k ~ 1 Ra 1 1 1 1c
1 V 1 1 1 1 ~ ,
~ ~ 0 P~ 1 1 111 , 1 1
~ ~ ? b ` ` 1 1 b ~ 1 1 1 ~
1 1 111 1 1~
y 1 1 1 1 ~ t 1 1 1 ~ 1
~ I l~• ~ 1 1 X11 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1
r ~ ~ y r1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1
~
_ ttrr -MH +4 1 ~ ~ ~ ~uR 1 1
~p~ ° 1 1 1 ~ t00 ~ 1 1 1 1 ,

4 n} 1~ y 1 1 , ~1 ` 1 1 1
,t . dp Li y' ' 1 1 ~ 1 1
~ S t 0. . ~ ~ ~ 5 ~a ~ ~ 1 1 , ~ f 1 1
5 :1~~. ~ _ • 's 1 !i YpJ ~ Ry0' 1
3 I 11 111` 1 1 1 1 ~
1 1 1
-A~: 1 I ~ I 1 111 ,
i ` I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~a 1 1 `
1 . t * _ -F~ t*a ~ ~ 1 1 ` 1 1 • N ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1
I ~ t ~ .y . i .Iap, ,PERMANENT POOL ~ ;'_`,;~'~~=."r.~-,~.~;; 1 1 1 1 1 1
I SIB ' v} I ~ ~ I ' BASIN ~ 'p ~ 1 1 1 1
1 I ~ 1 I 1 1 111 ~ 1 1 1 ,
1 1 1 ~ 1 II 1 ~ 11 ` 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~
I 1 ~ I I I 1 ~ P 1 1/ I I I ~1 \ 1 111' Z a °~a ~ ~ 1 1~~ ~ ~ 1~ 1 1 1. ,
1 1 ~ - I I I _ , 1 1
fI 1 I 'k / / 1 11
1 f - b r' / ~1 1 1 bran. ~
~ ~ - / ~ ~ I ~ ~ • ~ ~ 1 11 ~
` ~ ~ 1 ,1
~ .,t :1,,.,;. 1
~ a ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ 11 1 a
~ / ~ ~ t 1 1 1 w - ~ 1 1 1 ~ 11
~ ~ / ~ F ~ HESS, 1 1 11 1 P~ROEE 5 \ 1 1
~ ~ / T t~ Nr ` 1 r ~ 11 i 11
A p S .w ~ 1 111 1
D i/ L 1 ~ 1 1 1
T 0 'C 111 1 1 111 • ` ~ 1 1
d F C 1 1 11
A Y 1 HAROEE 1 1 , EX. 1 1 A Y 1
~ T . ..rte i ~ ~ 1
2 8 J~'7 1 1 *k` 1 1 1
' S 5 ~ ~ ~ \ 1
l ' 1 ~
/ g 1 1
9~ca ~ i s!M_,,dt ~ ~ ~ EX. ~N 1 1
.o N ~s~'' ~ K 1 ~ ~ / ' , 1~Y ~E B' .J C a~ S ` rN
y V ~i ff
J
LEC~ND ~ °d ~ 1
EXIST~IG WETLANDS ~ ,
- -1989 MA~tUAL - ~ i ~ ~
yN ~ OTAL FACT - 3.61 Ac. ` ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ 1
SCALE ~ (7.78 INCLUDES 4.17) 1
~ 1 -
` ~ 0 100 200 250 300 350 400 ~ % ~ ~o0 35o N SAMPLE PLOTS ~ , -
A 4 ' 3 -
- L
N DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD: "
R 0 ~ i r~lrl l E 4
U

S - g::: t
0 r
N
S
JOB NUM. HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE DESIGN
92-014 1" = 100' OCT. 14, 1995 J.M.S.- f ~ . ,
WAL-MIN1 yERTICAL SCALi DRAWN BY Cti1ICD
- M.G.Jr. - J.M.S.- r ` D-0415

i
1 BEFORf 3 1 1 4 , ,
YOU DIG MMT M ~ ~ 1 NMT N /ttAq 1
CALL Tql F1~E 1-800- ~ 1 1 1 1 ~
632-4949 ~ ~ _ _ _ 1
NORTH _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ` 1 ~ 1 1
CAROLINA ONE-CALL _ _ ~ ' ~ 1 ~1dp AO~~ , _ _ _ - ~ 1 1
CENTER g f ~i 1 11 , ~ 1 1 0
1 1 1 ~
1 1 1 pet' ~ 1 11 1 1
i t 1 1
1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 111
PROPOSED m DIVERSION ~ 1 I I 1 1 1 1 tl
I'~ ' ~ BERM 1 1 ~ 1 1
1 1 11 1 1
~ i ' r ~ / V A t. ~ ~PI 1 1 1
~ R. r:t \ 1 1 ` ~3 1 1 111 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1
i :..'~f,;.j~t,• a-y'~~ r'.ii:yi r.~ ; 1~~ 1.15 Ac. 1 ~ , ; 1 1 1 p
'y ~UCN T ~N q 'i, -~i 1 1 111 ~ ~ 1 1
~p ROUiyD f ~ ;i i~; % i 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1
~ ~ ' A 1 X11
1 1 r ~ 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 11
/ 1 1 1 1 1
W CE#TER ENTRY, LEFT / 1 1 1 1 ~ 1
~ T[E lEi'T C-188-SOk,-OL 1 1 1 1 ~ 1
l ~ , - ~ << 1 1 1 1
~ ~noNDTa A~~,, OUTPAFiCEL 1 1 ~ 1 1 1
yam. sT~URB L . . ; I 1 ~Z 1 1
4 ,i y_ \ ~a~: 1 t .42 Ac. 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1
' ~ 1 1 1
~ ~a HS ~t ,r y °v' 4, 1 1 1 1 i
9 1 1 / ~
FAO st ~ t • t~ , 1 ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 l l ~ / , 1 1 ,
J 2ATURAI FOREBAY •+T~ ( DAY ORAW DONN) . 11 1
~I ~ r 1 ~ - 11 ~ 1 1
- ! 1 ` I 1 111 ~ ~ 1 1 1
' ~ , ~ ~ ,A\ . ~ -~A ~ 1 1 1 1
,PERMANENT POOL ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 111 1 1 1
BASRI ~ ~ ~ . ~?t / ~1 1 1
B ~ ~ ~ ~ / 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1
/ ~ 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ ~ ~ .,•,-ti;, , ~ ~ ~ i i \ ~P~, L 1 1 1 ''1 1 1 ~
~ ~ I 1
~ ~ ~ ~ k:r::, ~ , 1.15 Ac. 1 ~ ' 1 11
1 1
1 C14CUT C~ 1 1 ~
~ r 1 1 ~1
~ 1 . ~ ~ 11
i ` 1 1 1
i J ~ e 1 1 1 1
/ ~ . / ~ ~ ' ~ 11i 1 1 'd 55 111
~ ` d pG~~S \ 1 1 E D N~,k9 1 1 1 1
T ~ ~ u S ` ~ ~ ~ 11i 1 1 111
D _ 1 1 1 1 1 1
A T 1 0 11
'C 0 C 111 11 1 11 1 11
A Y ~ 0 NARDEE 5 1 1
i
S known as T Property / 2 / \ ~ ~ _ 1 / 1 1 1 ~ \ - 1
Y Green, Rods Mount N.C. ' $ ~ _ 1 1 h 1
1 1 1 1
J Y 11 4 1 1
3 N s ~ ~ s"" ~ ~ 1
~~1 ~ as ~ , ~ EX• 1 1
N V ~i n ~ ~ cam` sue'
J
~ ° ~ 1 / ~
- ~A~vuat~ - - i ' ~ - EXiSTINQ 1 ,
~ ~ 1~ i
~ ~ ~ TOTAL Nr~PACT - 3.07 Ac. ~ 1 ,
MN 7.241N 1 + ( CLUDES 4.17) ~ ~ , 1
0 100 200 250 350 400 ~ 8AMPLE PLOTS ~ ~ ~
2 3 4
N0 D DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD: R
E 1 10-30-95 MIETLANDS tMPACT J.M.S. M.G.Jr. y .1.
I 2 11-2-95 wETIANOS IMPACT /BLDG LOCATION J.M.S. M.G.Jr. ;
S 3 11-3-95 ADD PARKING /ADJ. CIRCUIT CITY J.M.S. M.G.Jr. _
I
0
N S
,bB NUM. HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE DESIGNI 92-014 1" = 100' SEPT. 28, 1995 J.M.S.-
9Z14 VERTICAL SCALE DRAWN By CHND 9
D-0415 M.G.Jr - J.M.S.- a.

D / X' C
o ~

~ '
u~
0

/
~

. • ~ i
t~'
Sr'
x.,,t__„_._ 1
s' ~
~
~ ` w
~ _
j

~j
i
~ I T

~T
.
i l
i' ~ ~ e~
u.a: pct itiw .
_o
- d _
. ~Ctlr7Mli~iC+tA1..-'__._3 ?~GDObl. ~;RYS - -
(~-cT~tc+.+~ T+~Jt~ 40, soas~r. ' :9s1 k. - _
Q t'3~'teL R~INL~~111Q G9 A~ 915 6.R 1(i .qb A~ i'
Q-7~"Ma!'C[V!lil~ G66.4eo~ -:t4}a6AI A.
p ~t~,~cr ~+:ur~ ge, i~af g;~~: -
~ t
r'?crrp= ~.e 6 ~ 4ao or. 4.tat A. ~ mss- w~ . sM
Q nera~~wwT•~rsr Papa 14c, coos.. a.esa
p an~esre~ e~ ev~a ~IS,cge s~r ~.a~ • ~ - - ` _ ~ . a: 1~.~NL~ Pt.AN 1sr^ TAP~AYTOWN CENTER
~esiE- ~xLrlicE i~ (.15o s.~ ~.~~{fe ~ ~1~ ~r = ~f-~r :~F~3~li/1M1G4 t1~L^, Ll#LI-A9 . 71's9ts4S . ,

1
A e ~
D a
SCALES 1`=100'-0`
TOTAL SF = 103,041 SF
~ TOTAL # ~F PARKS = 827 v
1p3~4
1 SF 1
~ , -
M"
t
'3z I 1. /
i~ ~ ,
i j / I
i I ~ I
~ .o, 11 i , ~ ,
l I I ,I
~ / / I / / I Ir r!,
I l ~i , I , Q
I lI ! l a
j I ~ II l / j. I I ! l
i. I i/ r . ~ ~ / o0
I II' , , !
1 I ! I IIIIII
~Illl d1~1 ~ ~ i ~
- J - -1-- " L - I ~ r - - - - EX, ACESS Y BRIDGE - ~
RUAD - - - - -I I ~ r~ ~
~--rT ll~ ~11t'' I I IIII
I ~ Ijll r I I i l l
li ~
I ~ I I
II I
- I I I I I 2 3 HARDEE S 1 III ( ~ a
RESTAURANT ~ I ~ I I I I I I I
II I
I I I
II I
II I
II I
a~l~l i

o U.S. a nMlUo X3009 = o'Y-[P&88
- - - (WESLEYAN BLVD)

c Copyright 1gg5 Appion Consultln Engineers, P.A. There drawings have been prapond os instruments of service for a partfCWar ilti ar avHdin f ovement and remoine th r e p opera. of the En eer for w
~ En eer for ua under hh wpKVNbn. No rsproduclion or other uee le dlawed without hit ~rmieelon.
F BE ORE 1
YOU DIG CNl Tql FREE _ - _ _ _ , _ 1 4
1-800- _ 1
632-4949 _ _ ~ 1 _ - - ~ 1
NORTH , - _ _ - - _ _ CAROLINA _ ~ ~ 1 - 1
ONE-CALL ~ - CENIER - EX. ACCESS RAMP _ _ - 1 1 RI«, 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~
i' 1 11 ,
1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1
1 1 1
~ „r , i ~ ~ \J 111 , 1 1
. I ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 x
1 1 1 , ,
- ~ ~ ~ - i"~ . r, 1 r } ` , j, t . ' 1 1 1 1
- E~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 A R 1 1 Q 1
~P , ~ ~ 1 1 1 , 0 # 1 1 1
O' ~ ~ ~,,c • 1 1
~'?~rr) 15 ' ` 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 ,
l,! - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ ~ ' n1iN ! , 1 1 11
1 1 i ~ 1 1 1 ~ G
. ~ f ~ ~ ~<<p 1 ~ I l 1 1 ~ ~~1 ! ~ 1 .1 1 1 ~
~ I ~ ~ ~~n ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ n;n n~ 1 1 1 ~
,r;~ ~ ~ , I I ~ ~ I 1 1 ~
i I I ,1, ~'1 l ~ 11 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1
~I i ~ 1 C~ 1 1 , 1 ~
Ih 1 i 1` ) F C ~ t.l~ 1 G~ , C ~ 1 1 R 1 1 P w ,
.1 '(P e.~ ~ ~ 1 1 , ~ 0 ~
I ~ i P~ • X 1 1 1 1 ~ q,2 1
!~i 1• 1 1 1
\ , ~ t "F `F ~n 1 1 1 1 T+ N, 1 1
f 1 1~ 1
1 o ? ~ 1 1 1 i 1 ,
r, 1 ~ ~ c ~ 1 1 1 D ~ ~ ~ 1, 1 ,
1 ~ .1 * ' , ~ ~~a ` 1 oal 1 1 1
Y l 1 ~ yfi.!AN ~ V O E 1 .1 , F ~ , , ,
fl. ~ _ X15' / ' 1 1 1
ti .~X b - ~ ~ ` 1 1 1 i' 1 1 1 ~
1 ~
~T• 13' 1 1 . ~ ~ 1 1 1
6.1~ Ri' - t~,;~' L 1 E 11 C
~2g 3.- ~ ,1 ~ 1 1 P ~ 1 !3 ~ 1 ~ 1 1
1 2. S.~ . --".13 ~ ~ 1
P 1 5 1 1 1
~ _ f~~ a r~ -,L. r.,., ~ 1• 1 ~ ,1
~ ~ ~1~" i ,
~ ~
~ ~ ~ , . . ~ . 1 ~ 5 3_ ~
0 2 1 fl -8a.5-- ~ 1
i ~ S ~ 1 ~S , 1 1
1 ~ ~ CC S 1 ,11 A ~ , 1 1 X~ pE
/ ~ ~ E p,R 1 1, .6... ,9 ~ N 1 1
u ~ Ta 1 ~ ti i , 1 ~
, l . r ~ ~ 1~Dc 1
C • • , 1 1 ~ ,1 1 1
~y ~ 1 ~ ~ C 1 E E ~1 1
I ~ V R/'K R , A N 1 ~ 1
Y - ~ Property known ®a ,.,r. ~ 1 1 ,1 1
2 9 VINage Qreen, Rods Mount N.C. ~ / l~
i 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
c• 1
P 6~ 1 1 ~ 1 / ~ 1 ' ~ 1
r~ fig, e ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~
X ~ ~ ~~N
~ t 1 1ER Iwl C I EN
~ ~ I I 1~ EX. K , > _ _ _ of EE pNY
~c`l.l~; T Im S
~ EX18T~VQ W KI8'TNVQ 1NETLAI~ , - _ _ 1 ~ .1 ~ IX
j TOTAL NutPi wl )TAL NutPACT 3.98 Ac. 1 C
(8.15 INCLUDE 15 INCLUDES 4.17 ~ ,
1 1
# BAI~I~'LE PL ~'LE PLOTS ~ 1 1 ~ , 1 1
sCAL~ ~ OF PARKING SPACfS NG SPACfS = 1,283 1
TOTAL BLDG. SO. FTG. _ o Too 200 2'~0 300 PARKING RATIO = S.QS . SQ. FTG. = 254,328
350 100 / TOTAL SITE ACREAGE _ ~ TIO = 5.05 1 \ A~~ ~ . ' / ,000 S.F. M ACREAGE _ -45.3 0~ ~ ' 6 Ac. \ R~ , ~ ~
TOTAL BUILDING AREA = NNG AREA = 25.75 Ac. TAR 3 10 ~
R N0. ~ GATE: DESCRIPTION: DY: CAD: rb ,4-.
E
V ~ a ~
S
~ p - ~.~r ;~k
N
S
-A • JOB NUM. Fi0RI10NTAL SCALE DATE pE~
92-014 7 ~ 1" = 100' APRIL 2fi, 1995 J.M.S.-
WAL-MIN1 t~RncAL scAt~ oRAr~ Br CNK D
- - - D 0415 M.G.Jr. J.M.S.-

Cop I t 19Db kon Coneutt En P.A, Thou dranrin have Item oQ a tnetr+~rnsnte of terdoe to o p4rtl~oWor ssto or boil, ent ~d remolna the propert of tAA for u
A Mr M yM IW No rproOVefbn or eM~r uM 4 atlp~W WMOUt hY
1 2
~oRE YOU DIG 3 ~ ~4
CALL Trill TREE
s' Ch. Lk. FENCE 3
N Runs Inside ~,~1, oR '
CAROLJNA Right-of-woy
oNE-cAu CENTER A~ ~
....,1,.,^,.,.:;,..,,.,.~. P Y 8 ~o~ ~
y .v
s. s., . u ~ ~ 4t~4 , mac.
i 7= ~

our ~O A
~ ~ • I
1 r - 1
I / 1 ~ i~ ~ /I7- ~
r r r ~
r r NI ~ L ~
r r ' M - _ 1 Lrrr ~I
II rrrr~ i1 u r"' r r I f 1
r r I I , II 'o ~
~ r r ~ II II `
r r r' ~ ~ "1"" ~
r ~ H ~ . ~ ~ Uzi s «rr c
4 M r r ~
i.as a~. N
rrr Y. ~y \
~ 1 , r~-.+rr~
3 R-. r .-r < "4 'lam' ~ t w, r r r r 3 as_ ~ Y a.
~ , , r'-~ r r r x ~

rr.-~rrr, ~ x,~v
c71 VE'11Y1 TfAT~ , : t ~~k
:FZ-,~ pX'" MAtVA1QyT ~ ,y
r r WAL- - MART' / rFA r~ II f ~f;~
CENT FR ENTRY r r r ~ ' ' RIGHt ~
r r r r r~ ROEN, TLE R C-188-SG~_p~ ~ r r r-~ r r r I I II
B II r r r r r I
r r r r r r 1+ ~
r r r r r r 1.15 Ac.
~ ~~~r~~~ ~ 1 ~
f ~ ~
if ~~~~~\\\V CIRCUIT GTY ~U
i ~ i
k , / / `I .
~ - ~0 ~0
~ .~`h..
~i $ ~ , ` i'.~'
T 1 0
. ~

~ ~
Pr known a8 Y / - _ ~_~--l-
Vie Qresen, Rock Mcxx~t N.C. i i "'i°'

J
~ _ ~ ,p~R
SE pR , a \ SP~~ Z F ~c?t _ _
MAN Mo EASE ocky _ of R _
Cit`J
_ _ _ _ - P9~
~ANU - a - ~ 2? ~ \
~ _ - _ - "o.~~ Ex~T EXISi1VC3 VVETLAI~6 STONY C~EK ~
ti,~ TOTAI - TOTAL IA~'ACT - 4.25 Aa \ C
- (8.42 Ifi (8.42 INCLUDES l.17)
SCALE - ~ 3,o~~E Ors
0 100 200 250 300 350 400
1 ~
3 q
N0. ~ DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: CAD: R •Y~ .
E ~ t•.s
~ .
S ~R
I ~n 0 ~ETL~R~DS ~~PACT A~
N _
S II.LAC~E C~R~~
JOB NUM. F~RIZONTAL SCALE DATE pEg(,~
92-014 1" = 100' SEPT. 2$, 1995 J.M,S.- ~
9214 WOi 4ERTICAL SCALE DRANN BY CNKD ~CKY X101 T, NORTH C~ROL~R~~
D-0415 M.G.Jr. - J.M.S.-