20060646 Ver 1_More Info Received_20060502

~w~ ~ Z~~~C~ o~~(~

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com March 13, 2006
S&EC Project # 9701.w1
To:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Jamie Shern
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd.
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
From: Sean Clark
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: East Nash Development
Nashville, NC
NCDENR-DWQ
Attn: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Parkview Building
D ~~~~ v
MAY D
2 zoos
~~STr~
On behalf of the owner, Mr. David Rose, please find attached a complete application and
supplemental information requesting written concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) that the activities proposed below may proceed under the use of an Individual Permit &
Individual Water Quality Certification. Please contact me at [phone] if you have any
questions or require additional information. In addition, please consider this application our
request for a no practical alternatives determination.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name East Nash Develo ment
Project T e Commercial Subdivision
Owner /Applicant Mr. David Rose
Count Nash
Nearest Town Nashville
Water Bod Name Intermittent UT to Stone Creek
Basin Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Class C;NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0.066 ac
Wetland Im act acres : 1.834 ac
Open Water Impact (acres): 0 ac
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1.890 ac
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 820'
Total Impact to Buffers NA
Attachments:
• Individual Permit Application Form
• Addresses and labels of adjacent property owners
• Project Description/Purpose and Need/Alternatives
• Table of contents for Public Interest Issues
(including Attachments)
Charlotte Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
Concord, NC 28025
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Proposed Project Description
The proposed East Nash Development project (the Project) is a +/- 79-acre commercial
site designed to meet the growing demand for such a development in this area of Nash
County. The Project will include a large anchor store and several out parcels. The East
Nash Development project site (the Site) is located approximately 900 feet south of US
Highway 64 (Hwy 64) and immediately south of Eastern Avenue (SR 1770) at a location
immediately east of Nashville, NC. The Site is bounded to the north by Eastern Avenue,
bounded to the south by the Nash County Railroad, and is immediately west of a small
residential community. The location provides easy access to and from (Hwy 64) and the
surrounding area. Figures 1 and 2 show maps of the Site's location on portions of the
pertinent USGS Quadrangle and Nash County Soil Survey respectively.
The Site is located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and in USGS Hydrologic Unit
Code 03020101. The site contains wetlands totaling 2.135 acres and an
unimportantJintermittent stream channel that drains from the wetland. There are no
perennial streams on the site. The site drains to Stoney Creek.
Although a stormwater plan is not attached, adequately sized areas have been set aside to
be used as treatment/detention areas for the stormwater generated from the dense
impervious surface area proposed onsite. The applicant requests that a conditiona1401 be
issued that requires the NC-Division of Water Quality's approval of a stormwater plan
prior to any impacts occurring onsite.
Purpose and Need
Given the County's location with respect to Interstate 95 and the City of Raleigh, Hwy
64 which is immediately south of the property is a heavily traveled corridor. Considering
the projected growth of this area as well as the immediate needs, there exists the demand
for a commercial shopping area that includes many small stores and restaurants such as
the proposed project. The proposed East Nash Development will address the need for
this type of development in the area

Alternatives Analysis
1. Alternatives f33 CFR 320.4(b)(4). 40 CFR 230.101: Based on the factors
considered below, it has been determined that there are no practicable alternatives that
would allow the applicant to avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with
construction of the proposed development.
a. Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites):
The no-action alternative would not meet the project purpose and
need. Under this alternative, the Site remains in its current use -
approximatelyhalf forested and undeveloped with the other half used
for agriculture, and the requested impacts would not occur. Given the
proximity of the land to the heavily traveled Hwy 64, it is highly
unlikely that the land would remain undeveloped. In addition, if the
applicant did not construct the Project, the applicant would lose the
economic benefit that would result from construction of the
commercial development, and the local community would lose the tax
revenues, and other pubic benefits of the Project such as the additional
jobs generated. The no action alternative would result in the
temporary preservation of approximately 1.834 acre of wetlands and
8201inear feet of unimportant/intermittent stream channel (0.066
acre). The wetland and stream preservation is termed as "temporary"
because there is a demand for such a commercial facility in this area
such as the one proposed, and as stated given the location and
proximity to Hwy 64 it is unlikely that the property would not be
developed. While this alternative would have the least environmental
impacts, it is not practicable.
2. Alternative 1---This alternative consists of placing the large box
anchor store directly behind the existing shopping center (Food Lion).
Although the anchor store itself would not impact the wetlands that
occur onsite, out parcels would still require impacts to jurisdictional
areas in order to be constructed. In this scenario there are, in theory
different possibilities on the orientation of the store and its required
parking spaces in relation to one another, the primary issue with this
location of the store is that the store does not have road frontage. This
lack of visibility that results in having the store so far off of the road
and behind the existing shopping center, severely impacts the
economics of having the store in this location. The lack of visibility
would result in a decrease of shoppers and would likely result in a
decrease of patronage to the out parcels and other stores that rely on
the anchor store to bring in customers. If there is no anchor store,
there are no out parcels. For this reason no large anchor store would

agree to have its store in this placement thereby not making this a
practicable alternative.
Alternative 2---This alternative proposes placing the large anchor store
east of the existing shopping center, as does the proposed location, but
pushes the store to the far southern property line. Although this
alternative seems to have the potential of impacting less jurisdictional
area, it does not. By pushing the store to the rear of the site, the two
wetland fingers that have been avoided in the preferred plan are
impacted. This alternative preserves no additional wetland areas than
the proposed plan and would likely impact more than the proposed
plan (most probably the entire 2.135 acres). Presumably, the
economic impacts would be less negative in this scenario than in
Alternative 1, however similarly to Alternative 1, no large anchor store
is willing to be as far removed from visibility as this plan requires. If
there is no anchor store to draw customers in, the potential of having
successful small stores and out parcels is very unlikely. For this
reason this alternative is not practicable.
3. Alternative sites of the same relative size and location needed for the
Project were evaluated but were rejected due to environmental
constraints, lack of accessibility from major traffic corridors, etc.
These sites are expounded upon within the Attachment 1 provided by
Stocks Engineering. Ideally, such a development should have
adequate size, quick and easy accessibility to high traffic areas and
high visibility from these high traffic areas. It has been determined
that this site location meets these criteria.
The Site borders US Highway 64, with the potential for high visibility
and easy access from the exit ramp off of Highway 64. The site also
has adequate size for a large anchor store such as the one proposed and
has enough acreage for a number of secondary stores and out parcels
thereby reducing the spread of commercial development onto adjacent
properties for a longer period of time than if the site could only
accommodate the large anchor store alone.